ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2022
Screening gene signatures for clinical response subtypes of lung transplantation.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in lung transplantation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Understanding Machine Learning Applications in Lung Transplantation: A Narrative Review.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
- Refining breast cancer biomarker discovery and drug targeting through an advanced data-driven approach.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Characterization of chromatin accessibility patterns in different mouse cell types using machine learning methods at single-cell resolution.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Lung is the most important organ in the human respiratory system, whose normal functions are quite essential for human beings. Under certain pathological conditions, the normal lung functions could no longer be maintained in patients, and lung transplantation is generally applied to ease patients' breathing and prolong their lives. However, several risk factors exist during and after lung transplantation, including bleeding, infection, and transplant rejections. In particular, transplant rejections are difficult to predict or prevent, leading to the most dangerous complications and severe status in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Given that most common monitoring and validation methods for lung transplantation rejections may take quite a long time and have low reproducibility, new technologies and methods are required to improve the efficacy and accuracy of rejection monitoring after lung transplantation. Recently, one previous study set up the gene expression profiles of patients who underwent lung transplantation. However, it did not provide a tool to predict lung transplantation responses. Here, a further deep investigation was conducted on such profiling data. A computational framework, incorporating several machine learning algorithms, such as feature selection methods and classification algorithms, was built to establish an effective prediction model distinguishing patient into different clinical subgroups, corresponding to different rejection responses after lung transplantation. Furthermore, the framework also screened essential genes with functional enrichments and create quantitative rules for the distinction of patients with different rejection responses to lung transplantation. The outcome of this contribution could provide guidelines for clinical treatment of each rejection subtype and contribute to the revealing of complicated rejection mechanisms of lung transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.