MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313488570 · doi:10.1111/petr.14459

Successful ABO incompatible heart transplantation after desensitization therapy in an older child

2023· article· en· W4313488570 on OpenAlexaff
Annemarie Krauss, Lori J. West, Jennifer Conway, Michael Khoury, Susan Nahirniak, Anne Halpin, Mohammed Al Aklabi, Simon Urschel

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalCanadian Blood ServicesAlberta Medical AssociationTranslational Research in OncologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABO blood group systemDesensitization (medicine)RituximabTransplantationHeart transplantationTiterImmunologyAntibody titerHuman leukocyte antigenAntigenAntibodySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ABO-incompatible heart transplantation (HTx) has become a standard procedure for children below 2 years of age due to an immunologically immature immune system and associated low isohemagglutinin titers. METHODS: We report a case of an ABO-incompatible HTx (recipient blood group O, donor blood group A) at the age of 5 years and 11 months with a fully matured immune system and previously high isohemagglutinin titers that diminished as a result of human leucocyte antigen (HLA) desensitization therapy with rituximab and immunoglobulins. RESULTS: The anti-A titer at the time of HTx was 1:16 with post-transplant isoagglutinin titers never exceeding 1:4 without any signs of rejection with now 3 years of post-HTx follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ABO isohemagglutinin titers should be routinely assessed in children undergoing desensitization therapy since ABOi transplantation can be considered in selected cases to expand the donor pool with the option of crossing the ABO barrier to find a better-matched allograft.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207