ReviewBiomedicines2025
Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Allograft Transplantation: Exaggerated Hope or Cautious Reality?
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune Biomarkers of Islet Transplant Rejection Revealed by Synthetic Immunological Niche.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Rejection-Focused Precision Medicine in Kidney Transplantation: Biology, Biomarkers, and Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nowadays, there have truly been spectacular advances in surgical techniques, the preservation of organs for transplants, the optimal and efficient selection of both donors and recipients, a more efficient diagnosis and prediction of possible complications of transplants, and important progress in the advances of pharmacological immunosuppression protocols and procedures. In this sense, survival rates after transplantation of various organs have been progressively increasing, especially in the case of lung transplants, whose average survival rate is usually lower than that of other types of solid organ transplants. Thus, detecting acute and subclinical rejection and chronic allograft rejection of any implant is important. This is important in all transplants, such as heart and lung transplants. In this last type of transplant, particularly, and due to the chronic dysfunction of the lung allograft, it is key to detect rejection early and on time, since it can reach close to half of the transplant patient population. Therefore, practical diagnostic tools are needed to visualize the level of allograft damage using genomic methods such as those that measure donor-derived cell-free DNA, where its amount increases in the plasma component of the transplant after tissue injury or due to allograft infection. This biomarker has become a key element with light and hope, but with some shadows of caution due to its use as a panacea. Our research team has experience in solid organ transplantation in quantifying this parameter in the progression of the lesion of the implanted allograft, and our experience and comparison with the published literature will be presented in the following review, discussing validated and non-validated results.
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.