Clinical utility of complement-dependent C3d assay in kidney recipients presenting with late allograft dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a complement-dependent C3d assay to risk stratify donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in a multicenter cohort of kidney recipients presenting with new-onset clinical dysfunction. A total of 106 subjects with evidence of DSA at a mean period of 5.3 ± 5.0 years posttransplant underwent testing using C3d reagents. C3d positivity was strongly associated with both the peak and sum IgG DSA MFI, with 98.3% (n = 57/58) of strongly reactive sera (peak MFI > 10 000) eliciting a positive signal. Patients with C3d+ DSA had a higher creatinine (P = .03), more significant graft fibrosis (P = .035), and a faster rate of graft loss posttest compared to those with C3d- DSA (P = .05). Subanalysis of patients with low-moderate level DSA confirmed the inferior outcome associated with C3d positivity. Despite the prognostic value of C3d as a stand-alone test, the assay did not provide independent risk prediction after incorporation of graft fibrosis in a multivariate model (P = .94). Overall, C3d offered limited discriminatory value for strong DSA with peak IgG MFI > 10 000 and in patients where histologic data is available, but its utilization may be considered in those with low-moderate level DSA and where an allograft biopsy is not accessible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".