MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416866141 · doi:10.1681/asn.2025bs6p5t79

Terminal Complement Proteins Dominate Chronic Active Antibody-Mediated Rejection

2025· article· en· W4416866141 on OpenAlexaff
Maya A. Allen, Kieran Manion, Rohan John, Ana Konvalinka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminal (telecommunication)Complement (music)Complement systemAmino terminalImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transplantation is the best treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but many grafts fail due to antibody mediated rejection (AMR). Diagnostic criteria includes graft injury, C4d deposition on the endothelium, and circulating donor-specific antibodies (DSA). AMR is stratified into aucte (aAMR) or chronic-active (caAMR), by basement membrane doubling in caAMR. Notably, 50% of patients showing microvascular inflammation consistent with AMR don't have DSA. Methods: Laser capture microdissection was used to separate tubulointerstitium (TI) and glomeruli of biopsies from 83 DSA+ and DSA- patients with aAMR or caAMR, followed by unbiased proteomic analysis on a Q-Exactive HFX mass spectrometer. Results: Complement proteins were amongst the most significantly differentially expressed proteins in both compartments (p<0.05). C6, C8B, and C8G were increased in TI of DSA+AMR biopsies compared to DSA-AMR biopsies. Terminal complement proteins were increased in caAMR compared to aAMR. In glomeruli, complement proteins were increased in caAMR. Preliminary imaging mass cytometry shows C5a expression in the basement membranes of 2 biopsies with caAMR, and activated C5b-9 co-stained with IgG. Conclusion: Increased complement expression and C5a in the basement membranes suggests complement involvement in caAMR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207