ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring personalized treatment for cardiac graft rejection based on a four-archetype analysis model and bioinformatics analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence optimizes immune rejection prediction and management in heart transplantation: a structured narrative review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Machine learning and multi-omics integration: advancing cardiovascular translational research and clinical practice.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Heart transplantation is the gold standard for treating patients with advanced heart failure. Although improvements in immunosuppressive therapies have significantly reduced the frequency of cardiac graft rejection, the incidences of T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection remain almost unchanged. A four-archetype analysis (4AA) model, developed by Philip F. Halloran, illustrated this problem well. It provided a new dimension to improve the accuracy of diagnoses and an independent system for recalibrating the histology guidelines. However, this model was based on the invasive method of endocardial biopsy, which undoubtedly increased the postoperative risk of heart transplant patients. Currently, little is known regarding the associated genes and specific functions of the different phenotypes. We performed bioinformatics analysis (using machine-learning methods and the WGCNA algorithm) to screen for hub-specific genes related to different phenotypes, based Gene Expression Omnibus accession number GSE124897. More immune cell infiltration was observed with the ABMR, TCMR, and injury phenotypes than with the stable phenotype. Hub-specific genes for each of the four archetypes were verified successfully using an external test set (accession number GSE2596). Logistic-regression models based on TCMR-specific hub genes and common hub genes were constructed with accurate diagnostic utility (area under the curve > 0.95). RELA, NFKB1, and SOX14 were identified as transcription factors important for TCMR/injury phenotypes and common genes, respectively. Additionally, 11 Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs were chosen from the DrugBank Database for each four-archetype model. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors may be a promising new option for transplant rejection treatment. KRAS signaling in cardiac transplant rejection is worth further investigation. Our results showed that heart transplant rejection subtypes can be accurately diagnosed by detecting expression of the corresponding specific genes, thereby enabling precise treatment or medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.