Review: The transcripts associated with organ allograft rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The molecular mechanisms operating in human organ transplant rejection are best inferred from the mRNAs expressed in biopsies because the corresponding proteins often have low expression and short half-lives, while small non-coding RNAs lack specificity. Associations should be characterized in a population that rigorously identifies T cell-mediated (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). This is best achieved in kidney transplant biopsies, but the results are generalizable to heart, lung, or liver transplants. Associations can be universal (all rejection), TCMR-selective, or ABMR-selective, with universal being strongest and ABMR-selective weakest. Top universal transcripts are IFNG-inducible (eg, CXCL11 IDO1, WARS) or shared by effector T cells (ETCs) and NK cells (eg, KLRD1, CCL4). TCMR-selective transcripts are expressed in activated ETCs (eg, CTLA4, IFNG), activated (eg, ADAMDEC1), or IFNG-induced macrophages (eg, ANKRD22). ABMR-selective transcripts are expressed in NK cells (eg, FGFBP2, GNLY) and endothelial cells (eg, ROBO4, DARC). Transcript associations are highly reproducible between biopsy sets when the same rejection definitions, case mix, algorithm, and technology are applied, but exact ranks will vary. Previously published rejection-associated transcripts resemble universal and TCMR-selective transcripts due to incomplete representation of ABMR. Rejection-associated transcripts are never completely rejection-specific because they are shared with the stereotyped response-to-injury and innate immunity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".