When to intervene for donor-specific antibody after heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Posttransplant donor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies (DSA) represent a complex area in heart transplantation with nonstandardized practice and paucity of clinical data to guide optimal management. RECENT FINDINGS: De novo DSA after heart transplantation is common and associated with rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, allograft failure, and mortality. Advances in methods for HLA antibody detection have enabled identification of DSA with high precision and sensitivity. The detection of HLA antibodies must, however, be interpreted within appropriate laboratory and clinical contexts; it remains unclear which DSA are associated with greatest clinical risk. Increased antibody and clinical surveillance as well as optimization of maintenance immunosuppression are required for all patients with DSA. Antibody-directed therapies are reserved for patients with allograft dysfunction or rejection. Treatment of DSA may also be considered in asymptomatic high-risk patients including those in whom DSA arise de novo posttransplant, is persistent, high titer, or complement activating. The impact of DSA reduction and removal on long-term clinical outcomes remains unknown. SUMMARY: Despite improvements in DSA detection, identification, and characterization, best therapeutic strategies are unclear. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to develop effective standardized approaches for DSA management in heart 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".