Treatment Responses in Histologic Versus Molecular Diagnoses of Lung Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histologic evaluation of allograft biopsies after lung transplantation has several limitations, suggesting that molecular assessment using tissue transcriptomics could improve biopsy interpretation. This single-center, retrospective cohort study evaluated discrepancies between the histology of transbronchial biopsies (TBBs) with no rejection (NR) and T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR) by molecular diagnosis. The accuracy of diagnosis was assessed based on response to treatment. 54 TBBs from Prague Lung Transplant Program obtained between December 2015 and January 2020 were included. Patients with acute cellular rejection (ACR) grade ≥ 1 by histology received anti-rejection treatment. Response to therapy was defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥ 10% 4 weeks post-biopsy compared to the pre-biopsy value. Among the 54 analyzed TBBs, 25 (46%) were concordant with histology, while 29 (54%) showed discrepancies. ACR grade 0 was found in 12 TBBs (22%) and grade A1 ≥ 1 in 42 TBBs (78%). Treatment response was present in 14% in the NR group and in 50% in the TCMR group ( p = 0.024). Our findings suggest that low-grade acute cellular rejection is less likely to be associated with molecular TCMR, which might better identify lung transplant recipients who benefit from therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".