MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399215317 · doi:10.1042/cs20220530

Precision diagnostics in transplanted organs using microarray-assessed gene expression: concepts and technical methods of the Molecular Microscope® Diagnostic System (MMDx)

2024· article· en· W4399215317 on OpenAlex
Katelynn S. Madill-Thomsen, Philip F. Halloran

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical diagnosisPrecision medicineIntensive care medicineDiseaseMedicineCompanion diagnosticPathologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a major unmet need for improved accuracy and precision in the assessment of transplant rejection and tissue injury. Diagnoses relying on histologic and visual assessments demonstrate significant variation between expert observers (as represented by low kappa values) and have limited ability to assess many biological processes that produce little histologic changes, for example, acute injury. Consensus rules and guidelines for histologic diagnosis are useful but may have errors. Risks of over- or under-treatment can be serious: many therapies for transplant rejection or primary diseases are expensive and carry risk for significant adverse effects. Improved diagnostic methods could alleviate healthcare costs by reducing treatment errors, increase treatment efficacy, and serve as useful endpoints for clinical trials of new agents that can improve outcomes. Molecular diagnostic assessments using microarrays combined with machine learning algorithms for interpretation have shown promise for increasing diagnostic precision via probabilistic assessments, recalibrating standard of care diagnostic methods, clarifying ambiguous cases, and identifying potentially missed cases of rejection. This review describes the development and application of the Molecular Microscope® Diagnostic System (MMDx), and discusses the history and reasoning behind many common methods, statistical practices, and computational decisions employed to ensure that MMDx scores are as accurate and precise as possible. MMDx provides insights on disease processes and highly reproducible results from a comparatively small amount of tissue and constitutes a general approach that is useful in many areas of medicine, including kidney, heart, lung, and liver transplants, with the possibility of extrapolating lessons for understanding native organ disease states.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.413 · 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