Proteomics: Its Promise and Pitfalls in Shaping Precision Medicine in Solid Organ Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation is an established treatment of choice for end-stage organ failure. However, all transplant patients are at risk of developing complications, including allograft rejection and death. Histological analysis of graft biopsy is still the gold standard for evaluation of allograft injury, but it is an invasive procedure and prone to sampling errors. The past decade has seen an increased number of efforts to develop minimally invasive procedures for monitoring allograft injury. Despite the recent progress, limitations such as the complexity of proteomics-based technology, the lack of standardization, and the heterogeneity of populations that have been included in different studies have hindered proteomic tools from reaching clinical transplantation. This review focuses on the role of proteomics-based platforms in biomarker discovery and validation in solid organ transplantation. We also emphasize the value of biomarkers that provide potential mechanistic insights into the pathophysiology of allograft injury, dysfunction, or rejection. Additionally, we forecast that the growth of publicly available data sets, combined with computational methods that effectively integrate them, will facilitate a generation of more informed hypotheses for potential subsequent evaluation in preclinical and clinical studies. Finally, we illustrate the value of combining data sets through the integration of 2 independent data sets that pinpointed hub proteins in antibody-mediated rejection.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".