The impact of alloantibodies directed against the second donor on long-term outcomes of repeat liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite reports that associate donor specific antibody (DSA) with rejection after liver transplantation, grafts are still allocated according to blood group (ABO) but not human leukocyte antigen (HLA) compatibility, possibly due to the absence of an easily discernible clinical association between adverse recipient outcome and DSA. Re-transplantation provides a test environment where the presence of preformed DSA is prevalent and its effect on outcome should be apparent. Methods: All patients undergoing a second liver transplantation with available pre-operative serum were included with the exception of ABO incompatible or multiple organ transplants. Banked sera were tested for anti-HLA antibodies with Luminex-based solid phase assays. Anti-HLA antibodies to the second donor (D2SA) were determined using antibodies specificity and HLA typing of 2nd liver donor. Results: Preformed HLA antibodies directed to second liver transplantation (D2SA) were found in 31 (39%) of the 79 patients that were included in the study. Primary and re-transplantation characteristics were similar in both subgroups except first graft survival which was significantly shorter in recipients who are negative for D2SA. Mean survival of the second graft was similar in D2SA+ and D2SA− cohorts [8.55 (range, 0.01–24.74) vs. 7.56 (range, 0–23.53) years respectively, P=0.574]. Mean patient survival after 2nd liver transplantation was similar in D2SA+ and D2SA− cohorts [9.11 (range, 0.01–24.74) vs. 8.10 (range, 0–23.53) years respectively, P=0.504]. Subgroup univariate analysis demonstrated no detrimental effect of class, locus, or strength of D2SA on survival of the second liver transplant. In multivariate cox regression model, neither class I D2DSA (HR =1.101, P=0.92) nor class II D2SA (HR =1.74, P=0.359) were significant risks of graft failure. Conclusions: Presence of D2SA was not found to be associated with inferior outcomes in this retrospective cohort study of liver re-transplantation suggesting that changes to the allocation system are not required.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".