Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41869312›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2026

Advances in donor-derived cell-free DNA monitoring for solid organ transplantation.

Darius Sairafi, Emelie Foord, Linnéa Pettersson, Michael Uhlin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Darius SairafiDevyser AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Emelie FoordDevyser AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linnéa PetterssonDevyser AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Michael UhlinDevyser AB, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) has emerged as a minimally invasive biomarker of allograft injury following solid organ transplantation. However, its clinical performance and interpretability depend strongly on how dd-cfDNA is measured, reported, and integrated into existing care pathways. This narrative review outlines the biological rationale for dd-cfDNA monitoring and explores the key preanalytical and analytical factors affecting test performance, with an emphasis on comparing measurement technologies and commonly used diagnostic systems. We examine major assay strategies, including next-generation sequencing approaches and PCR-based methods, including digital PCR, and discuss how assay design influences the need for donor/recipient genotyping, analytical sensitivity, susceptibility to clinical confounders (e.g., early post-operative injury, infection, leukopenia, and multi-organ DNA sources), turnaround time, batching, and quality control requirements in centralized versus decentralized testing models. We synthesize evidence for clinical validity and utility across transplanted organs, focusing on use cases such as early detection of injury, risk stratification, and supporting biopsy decisions, while highlighting ongoing challenges like threshold harmonization, inter-platform comparability, and imperfect specificity for distinguishing rejection from non-rejection injury. Overall, dd-cfDNA serves as a valuable adjunct for graft surveillance, but broader clinical applications will require standardized guidance for assay performance and reporting, platform-aware interpretation frameworks, and prospective outcome-focused studies to define optimal testing intervals and decision thresholds.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsGraft RejectionOrgan TransplantationTissue DonorsBiomarkersHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansBiomarkersCell-Free Nucleic Acidsallograft rejectionassay standardizationbiomarkerdigital PCRdonor-derived cell-free DNAnext-generation sequencingtransplantation

Identifiers

PMID41869312
PMCPMC13002380

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.