Presence of Panel-reactive Antibodies after Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".