Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30947386›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons2019

Using computer-assisted morphometrics of 5-year biopsies to identify biomarkers of late renal allograft loss.

Aleksandar Denic, Martha C Morales, Walter D Park, Byron H Smith, Walter K Kremers, Mariam P Alexander, Fernando G Cosio, Andrew D Rule, Mark D Stegall

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aleksandar DenicDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Martha C MoralesDepartment of Surgery and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Walter D ParkDepartment of Surgery and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Byron H SmithDepartment of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0001-9318-2437
Walter K KremersDepartment of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Mariam P AlexanderDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Fernando G CosioDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Andrew D RuleDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Mark D StegallDepartment of Surgery and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0001-9157-5405
Mayo Clinic · US

Funding

The macro- and micro- anatomy and pathology of the aging kidneyR01DK090358 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ANDREW David RULE · 2011 to 2026
$9.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK090358
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current Banff scoring system was not developed to predict graft loss and may not be ideal for use in clinical trials aimed at improving allograft survival. We hypothesized that scoring histologic features of digitized renal allograft biopsies using a continuous, more objective, computer-assisted morphometric (CAM) system might be more predictive of graft loss. We performed a nested case-control study in kidney transplant recipients with a surveillance biopsy obtained 5 years after transplantation. Patients that developed death-censored graft loss (n = 67) were 2:1 matched on age, gender, and follow-up time to controls with surviving grafts (n = 134). The risk of graft loss was compared between CAM-based models vs a model based on Banff scores. Both Banff and CAM identified chronic lesions associated with graft loss (chronic glomerulopathy, arteriolar hyalinosis, and mesangial expansion). However, the CAM-based models predicted graft loss better than the Banff-based model, both overall (c-statistic 0.754 vs 0.705, P < .001), and in biopsies without chronic glomerulopathy (c-statistic 0.738 vs 0.661, P < .001) where it identified more features predictive of graft loss (% luminal stenosis and % mesangial expansion). Using 5-year renal allograft surveillance biopsies, CAM-based models predict graft loss better than Banff models and might be developed into biomarkers for future clinical trials.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiopsyCase-Control StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlomerular Filtration RateGlomerulonephritisGraft RejectionGraft SurvivalHumansKidneyKidney Failure, ChronicKidney Function TestsKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkersbiomarkerbiopsyclinical research/practicekidney failure/injurykidney transplantation/nephrology

Identifiers

PMID30947386
PMCPMC8214914
OpenAlexW2927818520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.