Exploring the single-cell immune landscape of kidney allograft inflammation using imaging mass cytometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney allograft inflammation, mostly attributed to rejection and infection, is an important cause of graft injury and loss. Standard histopathological assessment of allograft inflammation provides limited insights into biological processes and the immune landscape. Here, using imaging mass cytometry with a panel of 28 validated biomarkers, we explored the single-cell landscape of kidney allograft inflammation in 32 kidney transplant biopsies and 247 high-dimensional histopathology images of various phenotypes of allograft inflammation (antibody-mediated rejection, T cell-mediated rejection, BK nephropathy, and chronic pyelonephritis). Using novel analytical tools, for cell segmentation, we segmented over 900 000 cells and developed a tissue-based classifier using over 3000 manually annotated kidney microstructures (glomeruli, tubules, interstitium, and arteries). Using PhenoGraph, we identified 11 immune and 9 nonimmune clusters and found a high prevalence of memory T cell and macrophage-enriched immune populations across phenotypes. Additionally, we trained a machine learning classifier to identify spatial biomarkers that could discriminate between the different allograft inflammatory phenotypes. Further validation of imaging mass cytometry in larger cohorts and with more biomarkers will likely help interrogate kidney allograft inflammation in more depth than has been possible to date.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".