MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388899409 · doi:10.1186/s12882-023-03401-0

Proteomic analysis investigating kidney transplantation outcomes- a scoping review

2023· review· en· W4388899409 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gareth J. McKay, Ammarin Thakkinstian, Alexander P. Maxwell, Michael Corr

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nephrology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilPublic Health AgencyQueen's UniversityHealth Service ExecutiveQueen's University BelfastCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationKidney transplantationNephrologyIntensive care medicineDialysisScopusRenal functionMEDLINEInternal medicineBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment option for most patients with end-stage kidney disease given the significantly lower morbidity and mortality rates compared to remaining on dialysis. Rejection and graft failure remain common in transplant recipients with limited improvement in long-term transplant outcomes despite therapeutic advances. There is an unmet need in the development of non-invasive biomarkers that specifically monitor graft function and predict transplant pathologies that affect outcomes. Despite the potential of proteomic investigatory approaches, up to now, no candidate biomarkers of sufficient sensitivity or specificity have translated into clinical use. The aim of this review was to collate and summarise protein findings and protein pathways implicated in the literature to date, and potentially flag putative biomarkers worth validating in independent patient cohorts. METHODS: This review followed the Joanna Briggs' Institute Methodology for a scoping review. MedlineALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Abstract and full text review were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data was collated using a pre-designed data extraction tool. RESULTS: One hundred one articles met the inclusion criteria. The majority were single-centre retrospective studies of small sample size. Mass spectrometry was the most used technique to evaluate differentially expressed proteins between diagnostic groups and studies identified various candidate biomarkers such as immune or structural proteins. DISCUSSION: Putative immune or structural protein candidate biomarkers have been identified using proteomic techniques in multiple sample types including urine, serum and fluid used to perfuse donor kidneys. The most consistent findings implicated proteins associated with tubular dysfunction and immunological regulatory pathways such as leukocyte trafficking. However, clinical translation and adoption of candidate biomarkers is limited, and these will require comprehensive evaluation in larger prospective, multicentre 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NephrologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207