Using Regression Equations to Enhance Interpretation of Histology Lesions of Kidney Transplant Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Banff system for histologic diagnosis of rejection in kidney transplant biopsies uses guidelines to assess designated features-lesions, donor-specific antibody (DSA), and C4d staining. We explored whether using regression equations to interpret the features as well as current guidelines could establish the relative importance of each feature and improve histologic interpretation. METHODS: We developed logistic regression equations using the designated features to predict antibody-mediated rejection (AMR/mixed) and T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR/mixed) in 1679 indication biopsies from the INTERCOMEX study ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01299168). Equations were trained on molecular diagnoses independent of the designated features. RESULTS: In regression and random forests, the important features predicting molecular rejection were as follows: for AMR, ptc and g, followed by cg; for TCMR, t > i. V-lesions were relatively unimportant. C4d and DSA were also relatively unimportant for predicting AMR: by AUC, the model excluding them (0.853) was nearly as good as the model including them (0.860). Including time posttransplant slightly but significantly improved all models. By AUC, regression predicted molecular AMR and TCMR better than Banff histologic diagnoses. More importantly, in biopsies called "no rejection" by Banff guidelines, regression equations based on histology features identified histologic and molecular rejection-related changes in some biopsies and improved survival predictions. Thus, regression can screen for missed rejection. CONCLUSIONS: Using lesion-based regression equations in addition to Banff histology guidelines defines the relative important of histology features for identifying rejection, allows screening for potential missed diagnoses, and permits early estimates of AMR when C4d and DSA are not available.
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 | 0.020 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".