Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Exhibit More <i>TET2</i> -Mutant Clonal Hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential Not Driven by Increased Transplantation Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Solid organ transplant recipients comprise a unique population of immunosuppressed patients with increased risk of malignancy, including hematologic neoplasms. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) represents a known risk factor for hematologic malignancy and this study describes the prevalence and patterns of CHIP mutations across several types of solid organ transplants. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We use two national biobank cohorts comprised of >650,000 participants with linked genomic and longitudinal phenotypic data to describe the features of CHIP across 2,610 individuals who received kidney, liver, heart, or lung allografts. RESULTS: We find individuals with an allograft before their biobank enrollment had an increased prevalence of TET2 mutations (OR, 1.90; P = 4.0e-4), but individuals who received transplants post-enrollment had a CHIP mutation spectrum similar to that of the general population, without enrichment of TET2. In addition, we do not observe an association between CHIP and risk of incident transplantation among the overall population (HR, 1.02; P = 0.91). And in an exploratory analysis, we do not find evidence for a strong association between CHIP and rates of transplant complications such as rejection or graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that recipients of solid organ transplants display a unique pattern of clonal hematopoiesis with enrichment of TET2 driver mutations, the causes of which remain unclear and are deserving of further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".