Talk:Transplant rejection

Authors
Authors Needed This article needs some work: explanatory detail, mention of the current state of research, and especially considerable links to other articles on immune function. — PGV // Aesculapian 04:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) --- Does not the whole second paragraph in the acute rejection section refer to a liver transplant only? It would make more sense to PAD the transplanted organ to look for signs of rejection?? User:andbir 18 may 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes and

=Chronic rejection section is only about lungs=

Considering that chronic rejection is the leading cause of transplant loss, this section needs to be further developed. I know one should fix rather than whine. I'm not a scientist, but if no one else steps forward to develop the section, I'll take a swing at it.

Picture of skin graft rejection
I once saw a picture of an arm with an approx, 2cm diameter circle of skin transplanted (can't remember where). The first photo showed the skin healing nicely, the second photo, a few days later, showed the skin had gone black as it was rejected. Is it possible to find a photo like that for this article? ChristineD 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

rejection picture
"Micrograph showing lung transplant rejection." I am unsure of how the picture in this article shows/illustrates transplant rejection. Could the legend on the picture be more descriptive, or a better picture be found? --98.70.131.178 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

writing style
writing style in this article is beyond terrible. those who wrote it seem to be functionally illiterate - polluted with jargon, confusing, using synonyms in the same paragraph, inserting irrelevant info to obscure the point, missing relevant information; in short, total trash.


 * The first criticism was apt: This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (August 2012). The next criticism was ironic: This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: extremely poor writing style, confusing, "effect immunomemory" - full of random unnecessary jargon and generally unreliable. Please help improve this article if you can. (August 2012).


 * If someone follows the article it is not "random unnecessary jargon and generally unreliable", but a consistent description based on current immunology and medicine. Illustrative is the section "Immunologic rejection mechanisms" and its two subsections "Humoral immunity" and "Cellular immunity".  Although understandly difficult for a novice with short attention span to follow, the two subsections are clear if followed and introduce a reader to merely introductory basic immunology.


 * If one seeks brief summary, there is the section's introduction: Rejection is an adaptive immune response via cellular immunity (mediated by killer T cells inducing apoptosis of target cells) as well as humoral immunity (mediated by activated B cells secreting antibody molecules), though the action is joined by components of innate immune response (phagocytes and soluble immune proteins). Different types of transplanted tissues tend to favor different balances of rejection mechanisms—the end.


 * And does one not know what effect means, or what immunomemory means? In its context, effect is the verbal use: Primed toward these allogeneic (donor's) MHC peptides, the helper T cells effect immunomemory at either 1) the donor's self peptides, 2) the allogeneic (donor's) MHC molecules, or 3) both.  Prior sections describe immune memory.  I think immunomemory is self-evidently immune memory, although perhaps it could be stated as immune memory.


 * If one has such great knowledge about proper writing and immunology, fix the article. Otherwise, apparently one lacks the knowledge base to discern what is "in short, total trash". Altogether, the irrational extremity of the second tag suggests mostly emotional bias. So I remove the second tag. 100.2.100.128 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

UCSF Wikiproject Medicine Work Plan for 3/4-3/25, 2022
Hello Wikipedia,

My name is Caleb Edwards, a 4th year medical student at UCSF School of Medicine, embarking on journey to update the Wikipedia article on ‘Transplant Rejection’ over the next three weeks.

The plan is to overhaul the page with the following structure that will hopefully be more useful for the non-medical consumer who will be choosing to read up on this topic.

Transplant Rejection

Lead Summary: Summary in ~2 paragraphs

Types of transplant rejection: Each section will have subsections on definition, causes/mechanism, example w/symptoms from a singular organ (eg. Chronic rejection in lung transplant)
 * Hyperacute
 * Acute
 * Chronic

Treatment
 * Focus will be on treatments that would be performed in addition to any chronic regimens when rejection suspected

Prevention
 * Pre-transplant: Focus on how things are optimized to reduce risk of rejection occurring
 * Post-transplant: Focus will be long-term immunosuppression regimens and will aim to expand on non-adherence from current article if information available

Images
 * Will likely keep current micrographs of rejection; however, may look to add normal micrograph for comparison/contrast
 * Aim will be to include, if possible, a table of rejection type with time frame and mechanism summary

Simpeh523 (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review for Simpeh523
Hello! This is Gino Arcilla. Excellent work on the page thus far. Please find my feedback points below:


 * Excellent summary of types of transplant rejection
 * Article as a whole has well-organized sections
 * Considering the audience, it may be helpful to explain certain concepts such as what antigen and antibody is, endothelial lining, complement system, etc in layman's terms
 * The article is easy to read, but there are a large number of medical terms/jargon, sometimes multiple in one sentence, and may be confusing for the reader
 * It may be useful in this case to make the text blue by adding links that lead to other wikipedia pages ex for endothelium, incidence, morbidity and mortality, parenchymal damage, etc
 * The citations work, and link to appropriate resources
 * The content is factual and neutral, and it utilizes a large number of references
 * I would recommend updating the Lead because of short length and it does not introduce the different sections
 * You utilized multiple viewpoints and have a balanced number of references
 * I would recommend adding images/media or a table to illustrate the differences between types of transplant rejection if possible
 * The article overall has some imbalance in coverage, particularly with less information in sections "Rejection due to non-adherence" and "rejection detection"
 * I would like to encourage working on Treatment and Prevention sections, as listed in your work plan on the talk page. I did not see any edits to these sections, please let me know if I made an error

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Good luck! MedicalWiki123 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While these antibodies preformed antibodies
Hi, I think "While these antibodies preformed antibodies" is wrong, but I'm not sure what would actually make sense. Should it be "While these preformed antibodies?"  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)