MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223486139 · doi:10.1080/09273948.2022.2060263

Presence of Panel-reactive Antibodies after Penetrating Keratoplasty

2022· article· en· W4223486139 on OpenAlex
Albert Y. Cheung, Joseph H. Jeffrey, Khaliq Kurji, Matthew R. Denny, Amit Govil, Edward J. Holland

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOcular Immunology and Inflammation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersEye Bank Association of America
KeywordsMedicinePanel reactive antibodyIncidence (geometry)TransplantationSurgeryAntibodyRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineGastroenterologyOphthalmologyUrologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship between penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and postoperative PRA level and number of unacceptable antigens. METHODS: A cross-sectionalstudy was performed on patients with history of PK. Patients with prior solid organ transplantation, pregnancy, or blood transfusion were excluded. These findings were combined with a retrospective review. Patients were grouped by single or multiple PKs. The primary outcome was postoperative PRA level. RESULTS: Incidence of postoperative PRA elevation and mean peak PRA was higher in the multiple PK group (p = .08 and p = .010, respectively). Mean number of unacceptable antigens was elevated in the multiple PK group (p = .024). There was a moderately positive correlation between number of PK grafts and PRA level (r = 0.629, p = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: : PK: penetrating keratoplasty; PRA: panel reactive antibodies; OSST: ocular surface stem cell transplantation; LSCD: limbal stem cell deficiency.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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