The risk of donor-acquired allergy in solid-organ transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donor-acquired allergy (DAA) occurs when donors transfer their allergies to recipients through solid-organ transplant (SOT). However, the risk of DAA in recipients of organs from allergic donors has not been systematically characterized. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the available evidence on the risk of DAA in SOT recipients. METHODS: We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for original and peer-reviewed articles related to transplant allergy since database inception to February 11, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: The review included 24 studies with 747 SOT recipients and their 135 allergic donors in the category of food, drug, or venom. Only 40 recipients (5.4%) underwent allergy testing to donor allergens, and 23 of them had the testing done before an exposure to donor allergens. Among the 30 recipients (4.0%) who were diagnosed with having DAA based on a clinical reaction or positive allergy testing result, 19 (2.5%) had anaphylaxis to donor allergens. Only the type of SOT (lung or liver) was associated with an increased risk of DAA (odds ratio 88.0, 95% CI 22.5-481.3), with no association found for other organs. CONCLUSION: Despite the uncommon occurrence, recipients of organs from allergic donors could be at risk of severe allergic reactions to donor allergens. Although infrequently performed, allergy testing to donor allergens can effectively assess the risk of developing DAA. These findings highlight the risk of DAA and underscore the importance of proactive allergy assessment to prevent unnecessary anaphylaxis in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".