Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41659886›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in transplantation2025

Diagnosis of rejection following heart transplantation: diving into the future.

Shaline Rao, Syed Zain Ali, Arushi Singh, Mittal Rana, Mohamed Moussa, Kinza Ahmed, Stephanie Golob, Lauren Cusumano, Alana Harrington, Andrew Wang and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Shaline RaoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Syed Zain AliNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Arushi SinghNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Mittal RanaNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Mohamed MoussaNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Kinza AhmedNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Stephanie GolobNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Lauren CusumanoNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Alana HarringtonNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Andrew WangNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Sanjay ChandrasekharNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.
Amit AlamNew York University Long Island Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, Mineola, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the standardization of the grading system for pathologic diagnosis of antibody-mediated and acute cellular rejection, endomyocardial biopsy has remained the gold-standard. However, biopsies are invasive, costly, and limited by sampling error. As such, adjuvant non-invasive methods including cardiac biomarkers, imaging including cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography, and donor-specific antibodies and non-HLA antibodies have been traditionally used. However, all these techniques are limited by either sensitivity or specificity. More recently, there has been a shift to other contemporary non-biopsy surrogate markers for rejection surveillance including donor-derived cell free DNA, gene expression profiling, and messenger RNA and micro-RNA in tissue. Herein we review the methods currently utilized to diagnose rejection and their limitations. We find that while there have been significant advancements in technology and non-invasive techniques, no current method alone adequately diagnoses rejection (Central Image). Thus, future studies are warranted to investigate new strategies involving a multi-modal approach that incorporates non-invasive diagnostic methods and personalized medicine to monitor postoperative progression in heart transplant patients.

Indexed as

diagnosisheartheart transplant (HTx)non-invasive surveillancerejection

Identifiers

PMID41659886
PMCPMC12872891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.