MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607512484 · doi:10.1111/ajt.14329

Real Time Central Assessment of Kidney Transplant Indication Biopsies by Microarrays: The INTERCOMEX Study

2017· article· en· W2607512484 on OpenAlexaff
Philip F. Halloran, J. Reeve, Enver Akalin, Olivier Aubert, Georg A. Böhmig, Daniel C. Brennan, Jonathan S. Bromberg, Gunilla Einecke, Farsad Eskandary, Clément Gosset, J.P. Duong Van Huyen, Gaurav Gupta, Carmen Lefaucheur, Andrew F. Malone, Roslyn B. Mannon, Daniel Serón, Jacobo Sellarés, Matthew R. Weir, Alexandre Loupy

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyHistologyKidney transplantMedical diagnosisRadiologyKidneyInternal medicineKidney transplantationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors conducted a prospective trial to assess the feasibility of real time central molecular assessment of kidney transplant biopsy samples from 10 North American or European centers. Biopsy samples taken 1 day to 34 years posttransplantation were stabilized in RNAlater, sent via courier overnight at ambient temperature to the central laboratory, and processed (29 h workflow) using microarrays to assess T cell- and antibody-mediated rejection (TCMR and ABMR, respectively). Of 538 biopsy samples submitted, 519 (96%) were sufficient for microarray analysis (average length, 3 mm). Automated reports were generated without knowledge of histology and HLA antibody, with diagnoses assigned based on Molecular Microscope Diagnostic System (MMDx) classifier algorithms and signed out by one observer. Agreement between MMDx and histology (balanced accuracy) was 77% for TCMR, 77% for ABMR, and 76% for no rejection. A classification tree derived to provide automated sign-outs predicted the observer sign-outs with >90% accuracy. In 451 biopsy samples where feedback was obtained, clinicians indicated that MMDx more frequently agreed with clinical judgment (87%) than did histology (80%) (p = 0.0042). In 81% of feedback forms, clinicians reported that MMDx increased confidence in management compared with conventional assessment alone. The authors conclude that real time central molecular assessment is feasible and offers a useful new dimension in biopsy interpretation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#01299168.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations183
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207