Microarray applications in nephrology with special focus on transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increase in progressive kidney disease, rising numbers of patients with end-stage renal disease, organ shortages for kidney transplants and poor long-term graft survival rates underline the need for better strategies to diagnose, prevent and treat renal disease. Histological analysis, based on renal biopsies and readings of morphology, has limitations as key information for the management of the individual patient, and complementary technologies are needed. The sequencing of the human genome has provided the platform for applied molecular phenotyping. Microarray technology has become a routine method for robust high-throughput measurements of genome-wide transcriptome levels. This review will give examples of transcriptome profiling in nephrology and focus on lessons learned from studies in kidney transplantation. Molecular profiling detects changes not seen by morphology or captured by clinical markers. Gene expression signatures provide quantitative measurements of inflammatory burden and immune activation or metabolism, and reflect coordinated changes in pathways associated with injury and repair. Transcriptome profiling has the potential to improve our understanding of disease mechanisms, may provide tools to reclassify disease entities and be potentially helpful in individualizing therapies and predicting outcomes. However, description of transcriptome patterns is not an end in itself. The identification of predictive gene sets and the application to an individualized patient management requires integration of clinical and pathology-based variables as well as more objective reference markers and hard end points.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".