The MMDx^® diagnostic system: A critical re-appraisal of its knowledge gaps and a call for rigorous validation studies

Transcriptomics generates pathogenetic insights not obtainable by histology, but translation of these insights into diagnostic tests is not a trivial task. This opinion-piece critically appraises declarative MMDx statements, such as the infallibility of machine learning algorithms, measurements of gene expression with >99% precision, and "unambiguous reclassifications" of contentious biopsies such as those with borderline change, polyomavirus nephropathy, chronic active T-cell or mixed rejection, isolated intimal arteritis, and renal medullary pathology. It is shown that molecular diagnoses that do not agree with histology cannot be attributed primarily to pathology reading errors. Neither can all molecular calls derived from arbitrary binary thresholds be automatically accepted as the ground truth. Important other sources of discrepancies between clinico-pathologic and molecular calls include: (a) organ being studied, (b) disease definition, (c) clinical histologic, and gene expression heterogeneity within the same diagnostic label, (d) size and composition of comparator groups, (e) molecular noise, (f) variability in output of different machine learning algorithms, and (g) the nonavailability of a molecular classifier for chronic active TCMR. Carefully designed clinical trials are needed to determine which of the proposed indications of MMDx provide incremental value over existing standard of care protocols.