Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 629

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Banff 2015 Kidney Meeting Report: Current Challenges in Rejection Classification and Prospects for Adopting Molecular Pathology

Open access
Loupy, A., Haas, M., Solez, K., Racusen, L., Glotz, D., Seron, D., Nankivell, B.J., Colvin, R.B., Afrouzian, M., Akalin, E., Alachkar, N., Bagnasco, S., Becker, J.U., Cornell, L., Drachenberg, C., Dragun, D., de Kort, H., Gibson, I.W., Kraus, E.S., Lefaucheur, C., Legendre, C., Liapis, H., Muthukumar, T., Nickeleit, V., Orandi, B., Park, W., Rabant, M., Randhawa, P., Reed, E.F., Roufosse, C., Seshan, S.V., Sis, B., Singh, H.K., Schinstock, C., Tambur, A., Zeevi, A., Mengel, M.·2017·American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract

The XIII Banff meeting, held in conjunction the Canadian Society of Transplantation in Vancouver, Canada, reviewed the clinical impact of updates of C4d-negative antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) from the 2013 meeting, reports from active Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor-specific antibody tests (anti-HLA and non-HLA) with transplant histopathology, and questions of molecular transplant diagnostics. The use of transcriptome gene sets, their resultant diagnostic classifiers, or common key genes to supplement the diagnosis and classification of rejection requires further consensus agreement and validation in biopsies. Newly introduced concepts include the i-IFTA score, comprising inflammation within areas of fibrosis and atrophy and acceptance of transplant arteriolopathy within the descriptions of chronic active T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) or chronic ABMR. The pattern of mixed TCMR and ABMR was increasingly recognized. This report also includes improved definitions of TCMR and ABMR in pancreas transplants with specification of vascular lesions and prospects for defining a vascularized composite allograft rejection classification. The goal of the Banff process is ongoing integration of advances in histologic, serologic, and molecular diagnostic techniques to produce a consensus-based reporting system that offers precise composite scores, accurate routine diagnostics, and applicability to next-generation clinical trials.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajt.14107

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 629

Metadata

Authors
Loupy, A., Haas, M., Solez, K., Racusen, L., Glotz, D., Seron, D., Nankivell, B. J., Colvin, R. B., Afrouzian, M., Akalin, E., Alachkar, N., Bagnasco, S., Becker, J. U., Cornell, L., Drachenberg, C., Dragun, D., de Kort, H., Gibson, I. W., Kraus, E. S., Lefaucheur, C., Legendre, C., Liapis, H., Muthukumar, T., Nickeleit, V., Orandi, B., Park, W., Rabant, M., Randhawa, P., Reed, E. F., Roufosse, C., Seshan, S. V., Sis, B., Singh, H. K., Schinstock, C., Tambur, A., Zeevi, A., & Mengel, M.
Venue
American Journal of Transplantation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
28-41
ISSN
1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2552263672
Cited by
629
References
0
FWCI
72.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Banff 2015 Kidney Meeting Report: Current Challenges in Rejection Classification and Prospects for Adopting Molecular Pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ajt.14107
The paper
Loupy, A., Haas, M., Solez, K., Racusen, L., Glotz, D., Seron, D., Nankivell, B. J., Colvin, R. B., Afrouzian, M., Akalin, E., Alachkar, N., Bagnasco, S., Becker, J. U., Cornell, L., Drachenberg, C., Dragun, D., de Kort, H., Gibson, I. W., Kraus, E. S., . . . Mengel, M. (2017). The Banff 2015 Kidney Meeting Report: Current Challenges in Rejection Classification and Prospects for Adopting Molecular Pathology. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14107

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.