MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110732392 · doi:10.1097/mot.0000000000000832

New concepts in chronic antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection: prevention and treatment

2020· review· en· W3110732392 on OpenAlexaff
Katharina A. Mayer, Konstantin Doberer, Farsad Eskandary, Philip F. Halloran, Georg A. Böhmig

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGraft rejectionKidney transplantationAntibodyImmunologyKidney transplantKidneyIntensive care medicineTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a cardinal cause of transplant failure, with currently no proven effective prevention or treatment. The present review will focus on new therapeutic concepts currently under clinical evaluation. RECENT FINDINGS: One interesting treatment approach may be interference with interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling to modulate B-cell immunity and donor-specific antibody (DSA) production. Currently, a large phase III randomized controlled trial is underway to clarify the safety and efficacy of clazakizumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 antibody, in chronic AMR. A prevention/treatment strategy may be costimulation blockade using belatacept to interfere with germinal center responses and DSA formation. In a recent uncontrolled study, belatacept conversion was shown to stabilize renal function and dampen AMR activity. Moreover, preliminary clinical results suggest efficacy of CD38 antibodies to deplete plasma and natural killer cells to treat AMR, with anecdotal reports demonstrating at least transient resolution of active rejection. SUMMARY: There are promising concepts on the horizon for the prevention and treatment of chronic AMR. The design of adequately powered placebo-controlled trials to clarify the safety and efficacy of such new therapies, however, remains a big challenge, and will rely on the definition of precise surrogate endpoints predicting long-term allograft survival. Mapping the natural history of AMR would greatly help the understanding of who would derive benefits from treatment.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Organ TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207