Reassessing the Significance of Intimal Arteritis in Kidney Transplant Biopsy Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimal arteritis (the presence of v-lesions) in kidney transplant biopsy specimens is believed to have major prognostic and diagnostic significance. We assessed the relationship of v-lesions to prognosis in 703 indication biopsy specimens and used microarray-based molecular tests to re-examine the relationship of v-lesions to rejection. v-Lesions were noted in 49 specimens (7%) and were usually mild (v1). The presence of v-lesions had no effect on graft survival compared with the absence of v-lesions. Pathologists using current conventions almost always interpreted v-lesions as reflecting T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), either pure or mixed with antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). The molecular scores questioned the conventional diagnoses in 29 of 49 specimens (59%), including ten that were conventional TCMR with no molecular rejection and nine that were conventional TCMR mixed with pure ABMR molecularly. The presence of tubulointerstitial inflammation (i-t) meeting TCMR criteria allowed subclassification of v-lesion specimens into 21 i-t-v-lesion specimens and 28 isolated v-lesion specimens. Molecular TCMR scores were positive in 95% of i-t-v-lesion specimens but only 21% of isolated v-lesion specimens. Molecular ABMR scores were often positive in isolated v-lesion biopsies (46%). Time of biopsy after transplantation was critical for understanding isolated v-lesions: most early isolated v-lesion specimens had no molecular rejection and were DSA negative, whereas most isolated >1 year after transplantation had positive DSA and ABMR scores. Therefore, v-lesions in indication biopsy specimens do not affect prognosis and can reflect TCMR, ABMR, or no rejection. Time after transplantation, DSA, and accompanying inflammation provide probabilistic basis for interpreting v-lesions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".