The fraction of sensitization among lung transplant recipients in a transplant center in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody testing was approved by the Japanese government in 2018. As such, there was no longitudinal data regarding the HLA-sensitization of lung transplant (LTX) patients in Japan. We therefore set out to measure anti-HLA antibodies from all our LTX patients during their annual follow-up to characterize the sensitization status in the Japanese population. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was conducted for consecutive LTX recipients who underwent transplantation from January 2000 to January 2020 at Tohoku University Hospital (TUH). The serum from the recipients was screened for anti-HLA antibody with the panel-reactive assay (PRA) and the donor-specific antibodies (DSA). RESULTS: Sensitization was reviewed in 93 LTX recipients, showing 23 positive (24.7%) and 70 negative (75.3%) PRA. More sensitized recipients were found in recent transplantations (60.9% (14/23), ≤5 years post LTX) than in older transplantations (17.4% (4/23), 5-10 years or 21.7% (5/23), ≥10 years post LTX) (p = 0.04). Even fewer recipients had DSA (5.4%, 5/93), among whom 4/5 (80%) were recently transplanted. CONCLUSION: The rate of PRA positive LTX recipients in our population was lower compared with those in previous reports from US and Europe. More sensitized LTRs were found in recent transplantations than the older cohort, and DSA was identified primarily in the recent recipients. Due to several limitations, it is still unclear whether the sensitization would be related the development of CLAD or survival, yet this study would be fundamental to the future anti-HLA body study in Japanese population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".