"Epitope matching" became a trending topic in organ transplantation. In fact, discussions on clinical implementation and utilization of this approach in organ allocation algorithms are currently on-going. More recently, the term "eplet mismatch load" was introduced in publications. While the terms are often used synonymously, they are NOT equivalent. This short overview is meant to emphasize the differences between the terms epitope matching and eplet mismatching (or mismatch load) as well as to provide perspective on different approaches for interpretation of immune compatibility between the donor of an organ transplant and the recipient. It highlights some of the less explored qualities of HLA-epitopes, and stresses the need to understand the differences between donor and recipient in terms of immunogenicity and ability to initiate an immune response. While the field of "epitope matching" shows enormous promise, it is still in its infancy. What is sorely missing is understanding of EPITOPE COMPATIBILITY rather than matching. Further work is required before new approaches can be introduced into routine clinical practice and organ allocation schemes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,629,335
of 26,626,138 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#5,219
of 33,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,428
of 350,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#116
of 613 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,626,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 613 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
