MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810754978 · doi:10.1111/ajt.14977

Meeting report of the STAR—Sensitization in Transplantation Assessment of Risk: Naïve Abdominal Transplant Organ subgroup focus on kidney transplantation

2018· article· en· W2810754978 on OpenAlexaff
Roslyn B. Mannon, Medhat Askar, Annette M. Jackson, Kenneth A. Newell, Michael Mengel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationIntensive care medicineKidney transplantationOrgan transplantationHistocompatibilityHuman leukocyte antigenRisk assessmentSensitizationImmunologyInternal medicineAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of de novo donor-specific HLA antibody (dnDSA) is a critical feature contributing to late allograft failure. The complexity of the issue is further complicated by organ-specific differences, detection techniques, reliance of tissue histopathology and changing diagnostic criteria, ineffective therapies, and lack of consensus. To tackle these issues, the Sensitization in Transplantation Assessment of Risk (STAR) 2017 was initiated as a collaboration of the American Society of Transplantation and American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics consisting of 8 working groups with the goal to provide guidelines on how to assess risk and risk stratify patients based on their potential alloimmune and DSA status. Herein is a summary of discussions by the Naïve Abdominal Working Group, highlighting currently available data and identifying gaps in our knowledge on the development and impact of dnDSA following kidney transplantation.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207