Primary Graft Dysfunction Is Associated With Development of Early Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy, but Not Other Immune-mediated Complications, After Heart Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated associations between primary graft dysfunction (PGD) and development of acute cellular rejection (ACR), de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) after heart transplantation (HT). METHODS: A total of 381 consecutive adult HT patients from January 2015 to July 2020 at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was incidence of treated ACR (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 2R or 3R) and de novo DSA (mean fluorescence intensity >500) within 1 y post-HT. Secondary outcomes included median gene expression profiling score and donor-derived cell-free DNA level within 1 y and incidence of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) within 3 y post-HT. RESULTS: When adjusted for death as a competing risk, the estimated cumulative incidence of ACR (PGD 0.13 versus no PGD 0.21; P = 0.28), median gene expression profiling score (30 [interquartile range, 25-32] versus 30 [interquartile range, 25-33]; P = 0.34), and median donor-derived cell-free DNA levels was similar in patients with and without PGD. After adjusting for death as a competing risk, estimated cumulative incidence of de novo DSA within 1 y post-HT in patients with PGD was similar to those without PGD (0.29 versus 0.26; P = 0.10) with a similar DSA profile based on HLA loci. There was increased incidence of CAV in patients with PGD compared with patients without PGD (52.6% versus 24.8%; P = 0.01) within the first 3 y post-HT. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year after HT, patients with PGD had a similar incidence of ACR and development of de novo DSA, but a higher incidence of CAV when compared with patients without PGD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".