Thrombotic Microangiopathy in the Renal Allograft: Results of the TMA Banff Working Group Consensus on Pathologic Diagnostic Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Banff community summoned the TMA Banff Working Group to develop minimum diagnostic criteria (MDC) and recommendations for renal transplant TMA (Tx-TMA) diagnosis, which currently lacks standardized criteria. Using the Delphi method for consensus generation, 23 nephropathologists (panelists) with >3 years of diagnostic experience with Tx-TMA were asked to list light, immunofluorescence, and electron microscopic, clinical and laboratory criteria and differential diagnoses for Tx-TMA. Delphi was modified to include 2 validations rounds with histological evaluation of whole slide images of 37 transplant biopsies (28 TMA and 9 non-TMA). Starting with 338 criteria in R1, MDC were narrowed down to 24 in R8 generating 18 pathological, 2 clinical, 4 laboratory criteria, and 8 differential diagnoses. The panelists reached a good level of agreement (70%) on 76% of the validated cases. For the first time in Banff classification, Delphi was used to reach consensus on MDC for Tx-TMA. Phase I of the study (pathology phase) will be used as a model for Phase II (nephrology phase) for consensus regarding clinical and laboratory criteria. Eventually in Phase III (consensus of the consensus groups) and the final MDC for Tx-TMA will be reported to the transplantation community.
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 | 0.110 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".