MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13110: Pediatric Heart Transplantation in Pre-Sensitized Recipients: A Current Perspective

2016· article· en· W2775288727 on OpenAlexaff
Bibhuti B. Das, Elizabeth Pruitt, Kimberly Molina, William Ravekes, Scott R. Auerbach, Andrew Savage, Leah Knox, James K. Kirklin, David C. Naftel, Daphne T. Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart transplantationIntensive care medicineTransplantationPerspective (graphical)CardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Anti-HLA antibodies (Ab) are increasingly prevalent in pediatric patients (pts) awaiting heart transplant (HT) and may result in a significant delay in time to HT because of the need to wait for a negative prospective donor HLA crossmatch (XM). Methods: Data from pts in the Pediatric HT Study transplanted between 2010-2014 were analyzed to determine the association of pre-HT percent reactive anti-HLA Ab (PRA) detected by flow cytometry with retrospective donor XM results and outcomes after HT. Sensitization was defined as a PRA >20%. Results: HT was performed in 1,596 pts, 1,459 had a PRA calculated and 1,419 had XM results available. Sensitization was present in 32% of pts; 25% were sensitized against Class I and 20% were sensitized against Class II Ab (p<0.01). Sensitization was more common in pts with congenital heart disease (CHD) compared to cardiomyopathy (CM), 28% vs. 15%, respectively, p<0.01). Sensitization was similar between pts with and without ventricular assist device support, 20% vs. 25%, respectively, p=0.07. The level of sensitization was significantly associated with a +XM (p<0.01, Table). Sensitized pts who had a +XM were at higher risk for rejection than those who had a - XM and those who were not sensitized (p<0.01, Figure). There was no difference in post-HT survival between sensitized and nonsensitized pts, p=0.11, or those with and without a +XM, p=0.06. Conclusions: In the current era, 32% of pediatric HT pts are sensitized, with a higher incidence seen in pts with CHD compared to those with CM. Although, increasing PRA levels were associated with a higher likelihood of a positive retrospective XM, 68% of pts with a pre-HT PRA >50% had a negative XM. XM was positive in 9% of pts with a PRA between 1-20%. Sensitized pts with a positive XM had a higher incidence of rejection than all other pts. Better methods of identifying pts at risk for a positive XM are needed to refine the indications for a prospective XM in pediatric pts listed for HT.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→