ARVC specific autoantibody identifies cardiac sarcoidosis and correlates with inflammation activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is an inflammatory granulomatous disease of unknown origin. CS and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) are overlapping syndromes. With both, patients are at increased risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. However, the diagnosis of CS is challenging, especially in patients with no extracardiac involvement, but correct diagnosis has large therapeutic impact. Recently, a novel diagnostic autoantibody (anti-DSG2 Ab) was identified in ARVC. We sought to identify this antibody in CS patients and correlate its levels with inflammation activity using cardiac positron-emission-tomography (18-FDG-PET). Methods Recombinant human desmoglein-2 (DSG2) proteins on western blots were exposed to sera as well as purified IgG of 14 patients with sarcoidosis (all confirmed by histology) and 6 controls (1 ARVC patient (positive control) and 5 healthy control subjects (negative control)). Clinical patient characteristics were correlated to detected antibody intensity levels. Results The sarcoidosis cohort comprised 43% (6/14) male patients and the average age was 50±12 years. Anti-DSG2 Abs were identified in 43% (6/14) and were detected faintly (below cut off level) in 21% (3/14) of all sarcoidosis patients. Antibody was also present in the ARVC patient (1/1) and was absent in all control subjects (5/5). Myocardial inflammation was present in 18-FDG PET imaging in all CS patients with positive anti-DSG2 Abs, corresponding to an average SUV (standardized uptake value) of 8.1±4.2. In patients with faint or no antibody, the SUV values were significantly lower with 1.2±2.1 and 3.2±4.0, respectively (P=0.044, one-way ANOVA). The Pearson correlation coefficient (R) was 0.6 (P=0.037) for SUV vs. higher antibody levels assessed by pixel count of the western blot bands for purified IgG. Conclusions Anti-DSG2 Abs are not only a specific biomarker for ARVC, but are also found in CS, suggesting a similar pathophysiological mechanism in these overlapping syndromes, both involving cardiac inflammation and myocyte cell death. Moreover, antibody levels correlate with disease activity on cardiac PET imaging. Larger cohorts are necessary to confirm these findings. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".