Extracorporeal Photopheresis in Solid Organ Transplantation: Modulating B-cell Responses to Improve Graft Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation remains the only curative treatment for end-stage organ diseases. A critical aspect of enhancing long-term graft survival is to prevent antibody-mediated rejection caused by donor-specific antibodies (DSAs). DSAs are formed when donor alloantigen-specific B cells differentiate into antibody-secreting cells. In this review, we explore what is known about the relationship between treatment with extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) and its effects on undesired B-cell activation and DSA formation. Current preliminary evidence suggests that ECP, when used as an adjuvant therapy, displays significant benefits, including allograft survival, decreased circulating DSAs, and downregulated activation of the allogeneic immune response, possibly through expansion of regulatory B cells. Despite these promising findings, the precise mechanisms through which ECP affects B-cell fate remain incompletely understood. Further research into specific B-cell subpopulations is necessary to fully elucidate the role of ECP in modulating pathways involved in DSA formation, which might allow more effective management of antibody-mediated rejection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".