The yield of monitoring for <scp>HSV</scp> and <scp>VZV</scp> viremia in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reactivation of HSV and VZV is common following HSCT. Consensus guidelines do not support the use of routine screening for viremia following HSCT in adults, but no such clear guidelines exist in pediatrics. In our center, routine practice was to screen patients weekly for HSV and VZV viremia until engraftment in autologous transplant patients and up to day +100 in allogeneic transplant patients. We conducted a retrospective study of over 500 patients to establish whether this screening identified any patients with HSV or VZV viremia who would not have been identified by clinical signs or symptoms. Over a 4.5-yr period, routine screening identified three cases of HSV viremia and one case of VZV viremia. Two patients had persistent, unexplained fever and two patients had skin or mucosal lesions suggestive of HSV/VZV. We conclude that routine screening for HSV and VZV viremia in pediatric HSCT patients has a very low yield and that viremia can be reliably identified by targeted testing in patients with vesicular skin lesions, oral or genital ulceration, unexplained fever, neurological symptoms, or unexplained abnormal liver transaminases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".