Comparison of basiliximab vs antithymocyte globulin for induction in pediatric heart transplant recipients: An analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to compare 2 common induction strategies, basiliximab and ATG. Analysis of the ISHLT transplant registry was performed. The database was queried for pediatric heart transplants from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2015, who had received induction with basiliximab or ATG. Primary end-point was graft survival. Secondary end-points included 1-year survival and 1-year conditional survival. There were 3158 heart transplants who received induction with basiliximab or ATG. The ATG cohort was younger, more likely to have congenital heart disease or be a retransplant, have a higher PRA, longer ischemic time, and been transplanted earlier in the study period (all P<.01). There was no difference in graft loss in the basiliximab cohort compared to the ATG cohort (HR 1.18 P=.06). On conditional 1-year survival analysis, basiliximab induction was associated with graft loss (HR=1.35 95% CI 1.1-1.7, P<.01), and in the propensity-matched cohort, the basiliximab cohort was more likely to experience rejection prior to discharge (P=.04). Infection prior to discharge was more common in the antithymocyte cohort. Induction with ATG is associated with improved late graft survival compared to basiliximab.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".