No validated molecular endotype scheme exists for CLAD
Evidence level: proposed bottleneck; synthesis of abstract-level sources; pending approval
Endotype frameworks are proposed from small or single-centre studies and have not been validated across centres.
As of . Primary source: Burman et al. review (DOI).
Summary
The 2026 review by Burman, Bell, Chambers and Martinu proposes classifying CLAD by biological endotype (abstract only was read). The Leuven transcriptomic atlas reports two transcriptomic endotypes from 128 explant samples, validated across four datasets according to its abstract, plus a 26-gene panel. Imaging mass cytometry work compared only four BOS, four RAS and four control lungs. No validated endotype definition, threshold or cross-centre reproducibility is recorded in this site. Whether the endotypes in different studies describe the same disease states is not established by the sources opened.
Details
- barrier type
- classification
Sources and links
Related
Links from this record
- evidence: CLAD: translating basic science to clinical practice
- evidence: A transcriptomic atlas of chronic lung allograft dysfunction.
- evidence: Detailed cellular and spatial characterization of chronic lung allograft dysfunction using imaging mass cytometry
- evidence (content not read): Toward molecular endotypes of CLAD: dancing around the truth hidden in the tissue
- affects: Molecular endotypes of CLAD (proposed framework)
- affects: Airway transcriptomic signatures
- related data: GEO GSE224210: single-cell and spatial transcriptomics of CLAD and donor control lung
Known gaps in this record
- full text of the Burman review and the Juvet editorial (not read)
- head-to-head comparison of endotype schemes
Information resource only. Not medical advice. Not a substitute for the care of the patient's transplant team.