MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigating Blood-Based, Cell-Specific Biomarkers of Acute Cardiac Allograft Rejection

2017· article· en· W2614818158 on OpenAlexaff
Casey P. Shannon, Jiyoung Kim, Virginia Chen, Zsuzsanna Hollander, Karen Lam, J. Wilson-McManus, Sara Assadian, Robert Balshaw, Scott J. Tebbutt, Robert McMaster, Paul Keown, Raymond T. Ng, Bruce M. McManus

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia HospitalPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyBiomarkerTransplantationHeart transplantationMicroarrayGene expression profilingGene expressionPathologyInternal medicineGeneBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cardiac transplantation is the main intervention for patients with end-stage heart failure. Despite great improvements in maintenance immunosuppressive therapies, acute allograft rejection remains a clinical problem. Timely detection of moderate rejection allows for treatment to be modified, preventing organ damage, graft failure and patient death. Regular monitoring for rejection is thus crucial. The endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is the current standard for monitoring the allograft, but the procedure is highly invasive and costly. Consequently, there is great interest in developing blood-based biomarker tests to monitor for allograft rejection. Blood is a complex tissue, however, and accounting for its dynamic cellular heterogeneity is likely key to identifying robust biomarkers. We investigated whether integrating cellular composition estimates can lead to better performing biomarkers in the context of acute cardiac allograft rejection. Methods: Genome-wide transcript abundance was assayed from PAXgene peripheral whole blood samples obtained from patients undergoing biopsy-confirmed acute allograft rejection (≥2R; n = 29) or not (n = 198), using Affymetrix Human Gene 1.1 ST microarrays. The cellular composition of the blood samples was inferred from their gene expression profiles. Elastic net classifier panels were then identified using the whole blood gene expression, either unadjusted for cellular composition, adjusted for cellular composition for all cell types, or all but one cell type. Out-of-sample performance of the various models was estimated using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. Results: Best cross-validation performance (AUC = 0.75) was achieved by an NK cell-specific classifier panel. Both cell-adjusted and cell-specific classifiers outperformed those identified using unadjusted whole blood gene expression data. Conclusion: Cell-adjusted/specific biomarker panels outperformed those derived from unadjusted whole blood gene expression. Best performance was achieved by an NK cell-specific biomarker panel. The method presented here is a promising way to incorporate cellular composition in the context of biomarker discovery from gene expression in tissue admixtures.Figure

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207