The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A 2018 Reference Guide to the Banff Classification of Renal Allograft Pathology
Abstract
The Banff Classification of Allograft Pathology is an international consensus classification for the reporting of biopsies from solid organ transplants. Since its initial conception in 1991 for renal transplants, it has undergone review every 2 years, with attendant updated publications. The rapid expansion of knowledge in the field has led to numerous revisions of the classification. The resultant dispersal of relevant content makes it difficult for novices and experienced pathologists to faithfully apply the classification in routine diagnostic work and in clinical trials. This review shall provide a complete and simple illustrated reference guide of the Banff Classification of Kidney Allograft Pathology based on all publications including the 2017 update. It is intended as a concise desktop reference for pathologists and clinicians, providing definitions, Banff Lesion Scores and Banff Diagnostic Categories. An online website reference guide hosted by the Banff Foundation for Allograft Pathology (www.banfffoundation.org) is being developed, which will be updated with future refinement of the Banff Classification from 2019 onward.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Xenograft haemotoxin and eosin and periodic acid–Schiff-stained samples were scored by current Banff criteria including C4d deposition42.”
From Design and testing of a humanized porcine donor for xenotransplantation (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Rejection was assessed by histopathological examination, based on the Banff classification of renal allograft pathology42, with modifications for xenotransplantation (Table 1 and Extended Data Table 1).”
From Design and testing of a humanized porcine donor for xenotransplantation (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regev, A., Teichmann, S. A., Lander, E. S., Amit, I., Benoist, C., Birney, E., Bodenmiller, B., Campbell, P., Carninci, P., Clatworthy, M., et al. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.27041 · Cited by 2,232
The Human Cell Atlas: from vision to reality
Rozenblatt-Rosen, O., Stubbington, M. J. T., Regev, A., & Teichmann, S. A. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/550451a · Cited by 638
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 1993, International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: the Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology, Kidney Int, 44, 411, 10.1038/ki.1993.259 · DOI
- 2007, SWOT analysis of Banff: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the international Banff consensus process and classification system for renal allograft pathology, Am J Transplant, 7, 2221, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01924.x · DOI
- 2016, Banff borderline changes suspicious for acute T cell-mediated rejection: where do we stand?, Am J Transplant, 16, 2654, 10.1111/ajt.13784 · DOI
- 1996, Report of the Third Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology (July 20–24, 1995) on classification and lesion scoring in renal allograft pathology, Transplant Proc, 28, 441
- 1999, The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology, Kidney Int, 55, 713, 10.1046/j.1523-1755.1999.00299.x · DOI
- 2004, Banff 2003 meeting report: new diagnostic insights and standards, Am J Transplant, 4, 1562, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00585.x · DOI
- 2007, Banff '05 Meeting Report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy ('CAN'), Am J Transplant, 7, 518, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01688.x · DOI
- 2008, Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions, Am J Transplant, 8, 753, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02159.x · DOI
- 2012, Banff 2011 meeting report: new concepts in antibody-mediated rejection, Am J Transplant, 12, 563, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03926.x · DOI
- 2014, Banff 2013 meeting report: inclusion of c4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection and antibody-associated arterial lesions, Am J Transplant, 14, 272, 10.1111/ajt.12590 · DOI
- 2017, The Banff 2015 Kidney meeting report: current challenges in rejection classification and prospects for adopting molecular pathology, Am J Transplant, 17, 28, 10.1111/ajt.14107 · DOI
- 2018, The Banff 2017 kidney meeting report: revised diagnostic criteria for chronic active T cell-mediated rejection, antibody-mediated rejection, and prospects for integrative endpoints for next-generation clinical trials, Am J Transplant, 18, 293, 10.1111/ajt.14625 · DOI
- 2013, Consensus guidelines on the testing and clinical management issues associated with HLA and non-HLA antibodies in transplantation, Transplantation, 95, 19, 10.1097/TP.0b013e31827a19cc · DOI
- 2017, Banff histopathological consensus criteria for preimplantation kidney biopsies, Am J Transplant, 17, 140, 10.1111/ajt.13929 · DOI
- 2005, Loss of peritubular capillaries in the development of chronic allograft nephropathy, Transplant Proc, 37, 981, 10.1016/j.transproceed.2004.12.284 · DOI
- 2011, Morphometric and visual evaluation of fibrosis in renal biopsies, J Am Soc Nephrol, 22, 176, 10.1681/ASN.2009091005 · DOI
- 2014, Banff fibrosis study: multicenter visual assessment and computerized analysis of interstitial fibrosis in kidney biopsies, Am J Transplant, 14, 897, 10.1111/ajt.12641 · DOI
- 2011, Overlapping pathways to transplant glomerulopathy: chronic humoral rejection, hepatitis C infection, and thrombotic microangiopathy, Kidney Int, 80, 879, 10.1038/ki.2011.194 · DOI
- 2009, Scoring total inflammation is superior to the current Banff inflammation score in predicting outcome and the degree of molecular disturbance in renal allografts, Am J Transplant, 9, 1859, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02727.x · DOI
- 2010, Inflammation in areas of tubular atrophy in kidney allograft biopsies: a potent predictor of allograft failure, Am J Transplant, 10, 2066, 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2010.03240.x · DOI
- 2018, T cell-mediated rejection is a major determinant of inflammation in scarred areas in kidney allografts, Am J Transplant, 18, 377, 10.1111/ajt.14565 · DOI
- 2018, The causes, significance and consequences of inflammatory fibrosis in kidney transplantation: the Banff i-IFTA lesion, Am J Transplant, 18, 364, 10.1111/ajt.14609 · DOI
- 2018, The bridge between transplantation and regenerative medicine: beginning a new Banff classification of tissue engineering pathology, Am J Transplant, 18, 321, 10.1111/ajt.14610 · DOI
- 2017, Kim Solez, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Banff: a unique start setting standards for consensus conferences, Transplantation, 101, 2264, 10.1097/TP.0000000000001901 · DOI
- 2002, Stem cells in the kidney, Kidney Int, 61, 387, 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00164.x · DOI
- 2017, Single-cell transcriptomics to explore the immune system in health and disease, Science, 358, 58, 10.1126/science.aan6828 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deep Learning-Based Histopathologic Assessment of Kidney Tissue
Hermsen, M., de Bel, T., den Boer, M., Steenbergen, E. J., Kers, J., Florquin, S., Roelofs, J. J. T. H., Stegall, M. D., Alexander, M. P., Smith, B. H., et al. (2019) · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.1681/asn.2019020144 · Cited by 344
Design and testing of a humanized porcine donor for xenotransplantation
Anand, R. P., Layer, J. V., Heja, D., Hirose, T., Lassiter, G., Firl, D. J., Paragas, V. B., Akkad, A., Chhangawala, S., Colvin, R. B., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06594-4 · Cited by 302
Banff Digital Pathology Working Group: Going Digital in Transplant Pathology
Farris, A. B., Moghe, I., Wu, S., Hogan, J., Cornell, L. D., Alexander, M. P., Kers, J., Demetris, A. J., Levenson, R. M., Tomaszewski, J., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.15850 · Cited by 48
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Roufosse, C., Simmonds, N., Clahsen-van Groningen, M., Haas, M., Henriksen, K. J., Horsfield, C., Loupy, A., Mengel, M., Perkowska-Ptasińska, A., Rabant, M., Racusen, L. C., Solez, K., & Becker, J. U.
- Venue
- Transplantation
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1795-1814
- ISSN
- 1534-6080
- 0041-1337
- PMC
- PMC7597974
- Cited by
- 751
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2022-12-01)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
