MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407762868 · doi:10.1097/mot.0000000000000217

Clinical applications of next-generation sequencing in histocompatibility and transplantation

2015· review· en· W2407762868 on OpenAlexaff
James H. Lan, Qiuheng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationComputational biologyDNA sequencingSanger sequencingSingle cell sequencingBioinformaticsBiologyMedicineExome sequencingDNAMutationGeneticsGeneInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) can overcome traditional methodological barriers to facilitate detailed studies of large genomes. Here, we summarize recent NGS-based developments in histocompatibility and transplantation, and highlight the dynamic range of clinical applications achievable on this platform. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple NGS-based protocols have been established to achieve unambiguous human leukocyte antigen genotyping. These methods are presently engaged to serve the high-throughput demand of large bone marrow registries; however, the scalable nature of NGS makes it an equally attractive technology for select applications within solid organ transplantation. Recently, the exquisite sensitivity of NGS has been leveraged to perform noninvasive allograft monitoring by tracking the dynamics of donor-derived cell-free DNA. Further, NGS-based T-cell receptor and immunoglobulin heavy chain repertoire profiling appear to be useful in clarifying disease-specific diagnoses in certain complex allograft pathology; detecting/quantifying minimal residual disease following allogeneic stem cell transplantation; and tracking donor-reactive T cells to understand the mechanism of tolerance in kidney transplant recipients. SUMMARY: NGS is superior to classical Sanger sequencing in its throughput, sensitivity, and the ability to provide phase-defined sequence data. These unique properties allow its broad application to diverse areas in clinical transplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.375
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.103 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Organ TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207