Maternal immune memory and sex differences in living donor kidney transplant outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women have higher rates of rejection and allograft failure not due to death than men. Offspring living kidney donor transplants provide an opportunity to assess the role of maternal immune memory in outcome differences between sexes. Among adult living kidney donor recipients in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2000 to 2018, the cumulative incidence of graft loss was higher in female than that in male recipients (P < .001). Among women, the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for graft loss was similar in offspring and nonoffspring donor transplant recipients (AHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .3), whereas male recipients of offspring donor kidneys had a lower risk of graft loss than those of nonoffspring donor recipients (AHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; P = .03). Among women, offspring donor recipients had a higher adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for rejection (AOR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.06-1.67; P = .02), but among men, the odds of rejection were similar in offspring and nonoffspring donor recipients (AOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39; P = .14). The findings indicate a role for maternal immune memory in sex differences in kidney transplant outcomes that should be verified with further immunologic studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".