MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949079311 · doi:10.1101/680298

Killer Immunoglobulin-like Receptor-Ligand Interactions Predict Clinical Outcomes Following Unrelated Donor Transplants

2019· preprint· en· W2949079311 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Krieger, Roy Sabo, Sanauz Moezzi, Caitlin N. Cain, Catherine Roberts, Pamela Kimball, Alden Chesney, John M. McCarty, Armand Keating, Rizwan Romee, Christina Wiedl, Rehan Qayyum, Amir A. Toor

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceptorTransplantationImmunologyHematopoietic cellHuman leukocyte antigenAntibodyGeneHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineMedicineBiologyHaematopoiesisOncologyGeneticsAntigenStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Killer immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) and KIR-ligand (KIRL) interactions play an important role in natural killer (NK) cell mediated graft versus leukemia effect following hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the KIR gene and KIRL content in individuals, making it difficult to estimate the full clinical impact of NK cell reconstitution following HCT. Herein a novel mathematical model designed to quantify these interactions is presented to better assess the influence of NK cell-mediated alloreactivity on transplant outcomes. Ninety-eight HLA matched unrelated donor (URD) HCT recipients were retrospectively studied. The KIR-KIRL interactions were quantified using a system of matrix equations. Unit values were ascribed to each KIR-KIRL interaction and directionality of interactions was denoted by, either a positive (activating) or negative symbol (inhibition); these interactions were then summed. The absolute values of both the missing KIRL as well as inhibitory KIR-KIRL interactions were significantly associated with overall survival and relapse. These score components were initially used to develop a weighted (w-KIR Score) and subsequently a simplified, non-weighted KIR-KIRL interaction scores (IM-KIR Score). Increased w-KIR Score and IM-KIR Score were both predictive of all-cause mortality and relapse; w-KIR score HR of 0.37 (P=0.001) and 0.44 (P=0.044) respectively; IM-KIR score HR of 0.5 (P=0.049) and 0.44 (P=0.002) respectively. IM-KIR score was also associated with NK cell reconstitution post HCT. KIR-KIRL interactions as reflected by the w-KIR and IM-KIR scores influence both relapse risk and survival in recipients of HLA matched URD HCT with hematological malignancies. Highlights Killer immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) – KIR-ligand (KIRL) interactions display a high degree of variability in HLA matched stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients. Individually, the magnitude of inhibitory and missing KIR-KIRL interactions predicts overall survival and relapse risk following SCT. Taken together the known KIR-KIRL interactions also predict clinical outcomes after HLA matched unrelated donor stem cell 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicImmune Cell Function and Interaction→French-language works237,207→