Analysis of independent microarray datasets of renal biopsies identifies a robust transcript signature of acute allograft rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcriptomics could contribute significantly to the early and specific diagnosis of rejection episodes by defining 'molecular Banff' signatures. Recently, the description of pathogenesis-based transcript sets offered a new opportunity for objective and quantitative diagnosis. Generating high-quality transcript panels is thus critical to define high-performance diagnostic classifier. In this study, a comparative analysis was performed across four different microarray datasets of heterogeneous sample collections from two published clinical datasets and two own datasets including biopsies for clinical indication, and samples from nonhuman primates. We characterized a common transcriptional profile of 70 genes, defined as acute rejection transcript set (ARTS). ARTS expression is significantly up-regulated in all AR samples as compared with stable allografts or healthy kidneys, and strongly correlates with the severity of Banff AR types. Similarly, ARTS were tested as a classifier in a large collection of 143 independent biopsies recently published by the University of Alberta. Results demonstrate that the 'in silico' approach applied in this study is able to identify a robust and reliable molecular signature for AR, supporting a specific and sensitive molecular diagnostic approach for renal transplant monitoring.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".