Donor and Recipient Polygenic Risk Scores Influence Kidney Transplant Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney transplant outcomes are influenced by donor and recipient age, sex, HLA mismatch, donor type, anti-rejection medication adherence and disease recurrence, but variability in transplant outcomes remains unexplained. We hypothesise that donor and recipient polygenic burden for traits related to kidney function may also influence graft function. We assembled a cohort of 6,060 living and deceased kidney donor-recipient pairs. We calculated polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for kidney function-related traits in both donors and recipients. We investigated the association between these PRSs and recipient eGFR at 1- and 5-year post-transplant as well as graft failure. Donor: hypertension PRS (P < 0.001), eGFR PRS (P < 0.001), and intracranial aneurysm PRS (P = 0.01), along with recipient eGFR PRS (P = 0.001) were associated with eGFR at 1-year post-transplantation. Clinical factors explained 25% of the variation in eGFR at 1-year and 13% at 5-year, with PRSs cumulatively adding 1% in both cases. PRSs were not associated with long-term graft survival. We demonstrate a small, but statistically significant association between donor and recipient PRSs and recipient graft function at 1- and 5-year post-transplant. This effect is, at present, unlikely to have clinical application and further research is required to improve PRS performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".