standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 3 of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | A DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION REVISING ITSELF IN PUBLIC - the fourteenth biennial Banff conference, which changed the criteria for two categories of kidney transplant rejection, named each revision by its meeting year, and published a survey of how its own users apply the previous version Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether inflammation in areas of fibrosis and atrophy (i-IFTA) should be admitted to the classification as diagnostic of chronic active TCMR, and at what thresholds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the 2017 revisions: tubulointerstitial criteria for chronic active TCMR added at i-IFTA 2-3 with tubulitis t2-3, ABMR criteria widened to admit C4d and validated molecular assays as alternatives to donor-specific antibodies, and the word 'acute' deleted from the ABMR category names Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | a controlled vocabulary whose own authors apply it non-uniformly, revised by consensus every two years against evidence that arrives between meetings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | THE VOCABULARY'S OWN AUTHORS DO NOT APPLY IT UNIFORMLY, AND THE PAPER SAYS SO IN ITS OWN WORKING-GROUP REPORT: `Survey among renal pathologists (including very experienced) revealed nonuniform application of current Banff TCMR cutoffs, consideration of non-Banff lesions in TCMR diagnosis, grading or nongrading of i-IFTA.` This corpus has records of vocabularies that failed on measurement (laubach2018) and of definitions that disagreed across papers; this is a body measuring the DISPERSION OF ITS OWN USERS and printing the result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A WORD WAS REMOVED FROM THE CLASSIFICATION FOR A COMMUNICATIVE REASON, NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE: `The term `ACUTE` (in acute/active ABMR) is confusing to clinicians, and consequently it has been removed from the Banff classification`. Nothing about the disease changed. The term was deleted because readers misread it - the same shape as macdonald2015 (WHO SAGE taking the narrower name for the broader concept for institutional reasons) and the ICTV's published change types, and the plainest case in the corpus of a definition edited for its AUDIENCE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE SURVEY SAYS HOW THE VOCABULARY IS MISREAD, NOT ONLY THAT IT IS: `Clinicians often fail to recognize chronic elements of ABMR (eg, cg >0)` and are `more likely to consider a diagnosis of chronic, active ABMR if C4d is negative, even if there is no TG, PTCBML, or IFTA`. A named direction of error against a named criterion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A FEATURE EXCLUDED IN 1991 WAS ADMITTED IN 2017 BECAUSE THE POPULATION CHANGED, NOT THE FEATURE: `The nonspecificity of i-IFTA for rejection, proved by the fact that it occurs in native kidneys, was the main reason why i-IFTA and tubulitis in atrophic tubules was specifically excluded from the classification at the first Banff meeting. However, since 1991, immunosuppression has changed and graft survival improved with more patients presenting late posttransplantation with i-IFTA.` The lesion is exactly as nonspecific as it was; what moved is who gets biopsied Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A CATEGORY WAS DELIBERATELY NOT CREATED, BECAUSE ITS ANALOGUE PROVED UNDEFINABLE: `there is no borderline or suspicious category for chronic active TCMR, particularly as this category within acute TCMR has proved to be troublesome for treating clinicians and even for pathologists to define`. An absence with a stated reason - a committee declining to mint a term because the existing one of that shape does not work Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND A LABELLING RULE EXISTS TO STOP THE SAME BIOPSY BEING COUNTED TWICE: `a biopsy fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for chronic active TCMR should not be given A SECOND DIAGNOSIS of Borderline or acute TCMR, because the latter already addresses the acute/ACTIVE COMPONENT` - while `biopsies with chronic active TCMR can have an additional diagnosis of ABMR`. Which co-diagnoses are permitted is part of the definition, and it is stated separately from the criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE MARKER PROPOSED AS A TRIAL ENDPOINT HAS THE SAME PROBLEM ONE LAYER DOWN: `current shortcomings of DSA testing (variability in test methods, diagnostic threshold definitions, clinical significance standards) are known to limit its utility as a sole endpoint`, with `Quotation withheld`. The definitional instability the meeting exists to fix in histology is present, unfixed, in the biomarker offered to replace it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | THE LESION ADMITTED TO THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT SPECIFIC AND THE PAPER SAYS SO BEFORE ADMITTING IT: `Clearly, i-IFTA is not a specific lesion, and adding i-IFTA by itself, even if moderate to severe, to the classification as diagnostic of chronic active TCMR does not appear warranted based on present data. It is well known that many other disease processes, including BK virus infection, pyelonephritis, ABMR, recurrent glomerulonephritis, and obstruction, may at some point present with i-IFTA.` The criterion is therefore a CONJUNCTION with tubulitis plus an exclusion list, not the lesion alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE THRESHOLDS ARE SET WHERE THE OUTCOME ASSOCIATION STARTS, IN ONE COHORT: `i-IFTA scores of 2 and 3, but not 1, as well as t2 and t3 tubulitis (but not t1) within areas of IFTA, excluding severely atrophic tubules, were associated with an increased rate of graft loss.` The class boundary is drawn at the point where a prognostic signal appears - the same move as the ARF/AKI classifications in this corpus, and it inherits that cohort's population Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the committee names its own strategy rather than presenting the choice as forced: `This conservative approach has served the Banff group well in the past, with the introduction of C4d-negative ABMR. As with the latter, future modifications will be considered as new data emerge`. The classification is explicitly provisional, with the revision mechanism part of the publication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | and the agreement figure behind the new criterion is three pathologists in one centre: `the Paris group reported GOOD AGREEMENT AMONG 3 PATHOLOGISTS in grading i-IFTA according to the Banff 2015 criteria, with complete agreement between all 3 PATHOLOGISTS IN 101 (67%) OF 150 CASES, and a KAPPA VALUE OF .62` - which is reported as good, and sits below this project's own controlled-vocabulary kappa of 0.702 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the occurrence of i-IFTA in NATIVE (non-transplanted) kidneys - a population in which rejection is impossible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the reading of i-IFTA as a rejection-specific lesion; it is the negative control that kept the lesion out of the classification for 26 years · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | requiring tubulitis (t2-3) ALONGSIDE i-IFTA (2-3), inflammation in >25% of total cortex, and explicit exclusion of chronic pyelonephritis and BK nephropathy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: overdiagnosis of chronic active TCMR from a lesion the paper calls nonspecific in the same section · outcome: held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | grading of i-IFTA by 3 pathologists against the Banff 2015 criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the objection that i-IFTA cannot be scored reproducibly, 'as scattered inflammatory cells are often seen in what might be considered by many pathologists to be bland fibrosis' · outcome: partial | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | chronic active TCMR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chronic active TCMR | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | acute TCMR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: acute TCMR | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | borderline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: borderline | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | i‐IFTA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: i‐IFTA | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | tubulitis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tubulitis | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | titration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: titration | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mean fluorescence intensity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean fluorescence intensity | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | `chronic active TCMR` (Banff 2017) - EXTENDED to the tubulointerstitial compartment: i-IFTA score 2-3 WITH tubulitis t2-3 in all but severely atrophic tubules, inflammation in >25% of total cortex, and other causes of i-IFTA ruled out. Banff 2015 named the entity in the vascular compartment only Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `acute/active ABMR` (before 2017) vs `active ABMR` (2017 on) - THE SAME CATEGORY WITH A WORD DELETED, `because the term `acute` ... is confusing to clinicians` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `i-IFTA` - `inflammation in areas of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy`: `EXCLUDED from the classification` in 1991 for nonspecificity, admitted in 2017 in conjunction with tubulitis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `borderline` - a category that exists WITHIN acute TCMR and was deliberately NOT created for chronic active TCMR, because the existing one `has proved to be troublesome for treating clinicians and even for pathologists to define` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the Banff 2015 meeting report, which named chronic active TCMR in the vascular compartment but gave no criteria for the tubulointerstitial one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → the first Banff meeting of 1991, which specifically EXCLUDED i-IFTA and tubulitis in atrophic tubules from the classification - this report reverses that exclusion and gives the reason Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | chronic active TCMR —distinct-from→ acute TCMR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'a biopsy fulfilling…' - the two categories are kept apart by a rule about co-diagnosis, not by a difference in lesion · the relation stated: the two categories are kept apart by a rule about CO-DIAGNOSIS: a biopsy meeting the chronic active criteria may NOT also be called Borderline or acute TCMR also in: chronic active TCMR · acute TCMR | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | titration —contrasted-with→ mean fluorescence intensity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: 'TITRATION RATHER…' - two readouts of the same antibody, one preferred because the other has a ceiling. The instrument's dynamic range decides which number the endpoint is made of · the relation stated: two readouts of the same antibody, one preferred RATHER THAN the other because the other saturates also in: titration · mean fluorescence intensity | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | borderline —part-of→ acute TCMR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: 'there is NO BORDERLINE…' - the borderline category belongs to acute TCMR and was deliberately withheld from the new one. Weight 0.85: the clause asserts the containment in a subordinate aside, in the course of denying its twin · the relation stated: the borderline category exists WITHIN acute TCMR - asserted in the aside that denies the same category to chronic active TCMR
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the borderline category exists within acute TCMR; part-of is loose. also in: borderline · acute TCMR | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | THE VOCABULARY'S OWN AUTHORS APPLY IT NON-UNIFORMLY, MEASURED AND PRINTED: `Survey among renal pathologists (including very experienced) revealed nonuniform application of current Banff TCMR cutoffs, consideration of non-Banff lesions in TCMR diagnosis, grading or nongrading of i-IFTA` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A WORD DELETED FROM A DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION FOR A COMMUNICATIVE REASON: `The term `ACUTE` (in acute/active ABMR) is confusing to clinicians, and consequently it has been removed from the Banff classification` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE DIRECTION OF THE MISREADING IS NAMED: `Clinicians often fail to recognize chronic elements of ABMR` and are `more likely to consider a diagnosis of chronic, active ABMR if C4d is negative, even if there is no TG, PTCBML, or IFTA` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A FEATURE EXCLUDED IN 1991 AND ADMITTED IN 2017 BECAUSE THE POPULATION CHANGED: `The NONSPECIFICITY of i-IFTA for rejection, proved by the fact that it occurs in native kidneys, was the MAIN REASON WHY [it] WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED ... at the first Banff meeting. However, since 1991, immunosuppression has changed` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A CATEGORY DELIBERATELY NOT CREATED, WITH THE REASON GIVEN: `there is no borderline or suspicious category for chronic active TCMR, particularly as this category within acute TCMR has proved to be troublesome for treating clinicians and even for pathologists to define` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AND THE BIOMARKER OFFERED AS A TRIAL ENDPOINT CARRIES THE SAME DEFECT: `current shortcomings of DSA testing (variability in test methods, diagnostic threshold definitions, clinical significance standards) are known to limit its utility as a sole endpoint` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `a combination of i-IFTA and tubulitis involving all but severely atrophic tubules, with moderately high thresholds for both (i-IFTA2-3; t2-3), a requirement for inflammation involving >25% of the total cortex present, and other differential diagnoses known to be associated with i-IFTA (eg, chronic pyelonephritis, BK nephropathy) being ruled out` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chronic active TCMR | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the exclusion inside the criterion: tubulitis counts in all but severely atrophic tubules, so the lesion is defined partly by which tubules do not count Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: severely atrophic tubules | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `complete agreement between all 3 PATHOLOGISTS IN 101 (67%) OF 150 CASES, and a KAPPA VALUE OF .62` - reported as `good agreement`, and the basis for admitting the lesion to the classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the extent requirement that sits alongside the two score thresholds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | `i-IFTA scores of 2 and 3, but not 1, as well as t2 and t3 tubulitis (but not t1) ... were associated with an increased rate of graft loss` - the class boundary drawn where the prognostic signal begins Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the agreement statistic the new criterion rests on, at .62 across 3 pathologists and 150 cases Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: kappa | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the semiquantitative score whose threshold (2-3 rather than 1) decides whether a biopsy is chronic active TCMR Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: i-IFTA score | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.