Molecular phenotyping of rejection-related changes in mucosal biopsies from lung transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnosing lung transplant rejection currently depends on histologic assessment of transbronchial biopsies (TBB) with limited reproducibility and considerable risk of complications. Mucosal biopsies are safer but not histologically interpretable. Microarray-based diagnostic systems for TBBs and other transplants suggest such systems could assess mucosal biopsies as well. We studied 243 mucosal biopsies from the third bronchial bifurcation (3BMBs) collected from seven centers and classified them using unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Using the expression of a set of rejection-associated transcripts annotated in kidneys and validated in hearts and lung transplant TBBs, the algorithms identified and scored major rejection and injury-related phenotypes in 3BMBs without need for labeled training data. No rejection or injury, rejection, late inflammation, and recent injury phenotypes were thus scored in new 3BMBs. The rejection phenotype correlated with IFNG-inducible transcripts, the hallmarks of rejection. Progressive atrophy-related changes reflected by the late inflammation phenotype in 3BMBs suggest widespread time-dependent airway deterioration, which was especially pronounced after two years posttransplant. Thus molecular assessment of 3BMBs can detect rejection in a previously unusable biopsy format with potential utility in patients with severe lung dysfunction where TBB is not possible and provide unique insights into airway deterioration. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02812290.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".