MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044780722 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/hvaa123

Analytical Validation of HEARTBiT: A Blood-Based Multiplex Gene Expression Profiling Assay for Exclusionary Diagnosis of Acute Cellular Rejection in Heart Transplant Patients

2020· article· en· W3044780722 on OpenAlexafffund
Ji‐Young V. Kim, Brandon Lee, Pavlos G. Koitsopoulos, Casey P. Shannon, Virginia Chen, Zsuzsanna Hollander, Sara Assadian, Karen Lam, Gordon Ritchie, Janet McManus, W. Robert McMaster, Raymond T. Ng, Bruce M. McManus, Scott J. Tebbutt

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCanadian Blood ServicesPrevention of Organ FailureUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacs
KeywordsSerial dilutionMultiplexCoefficient of variationReproducibilityBiomarkerHeart transplantationMedicineGene expression profilingGene expressionTransplantationBiologyGeneInternal medicineChromatographyBioinformaticsChemistryPathologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HEARTBiT is a whole blood-based gene profiling assay using the nucleic acid counting NanoString technology for the exclusionary diagnosis of acute cellular rejection in heart transplant patients. The HEARTBiT score measures the risk of acute cellular rejection in the first year following heart transplant, distinguishing patients with stable grafts from those at risk for acute cellular rejection. Here, we provide the analytical performance characteristics of the HEARTBiT assay and the results on pilot clinical validation. METHODS: We used purified RNA collected from PAXgene blood samples to evaluate the characteristics of a 12-gene panel HEARTBiT assay, for its linearity range, quantitative bias, precision, and reproducibility. These parameters were estimated either from serial dilutions of individual samples or from repeated runs on pooled samples. RESULTS: We found that all 12 genes showed linear behavior within the recommended assay input range of 125 ng to 500 ng of purified RNA, with most genes showing 3% or lower quantitative bias and around 5% coefficient of variation. Total variation resulting from unique operators, reagent lots, and runs was less than 0.02 units standard deviation (SD). The performance of the analytically validated assay (AUC = 0.75) was equivalent to what we observed in the signature development dataset. CONCLUSION: The analytical performance of the assay within the specification input range demonstrated reliable quantification of the HEARTBiT score within 0.02 SD units, measured on a 0 to 1 unit scale. This assay may therefore be of high utility in clinical validation of HEARTBiT in future biomarker observational trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ChemistrySame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207