The risk of transfusion‐acquired CMV infection in seronegative solid‐organ transplant recipients receiving non‐WBC‐reduced blood components not screened for CMV antibody (1984 to 1996): experience at a single Canadian center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of CMV-safe cellular blood components has been recommended for CMV-sero- negative recipients of CMV seronegative (R-D-) solid- organ transplants. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The incidence of CMV infection in 281 CMV-seronegative patients receiving renal, heart, heart-lung, lung, and liver transplants at our center between January 1984 and October 1996 was studied. The blood components that these patients received were neither WBC reduced nor screened for CMV antibody. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one of 154 (85.1%) patients receiving organs from CMV-seropositive donors (R-D+) developed CMV infection compared with three cases of presumptive transfusion-acquired (TA) CMV infection in 127 R-D- recipients (2.4%) (relative risk, 36.0; 95% CI, 11.8-110.4). The organ-specific incidence of TA CMV infection in R-D- patients was as follows: renal, 0 of 57 (0%); heart, 0 of 29 (0%); heart-lung and/or lung, 1 of 6 (16.7%); and liver, 2 of 20 (10%). There was no significant difference in the transfusion requirements of CMV-infected and -uninfected R-D- patients. False-positive results were often (40%) observed when posttransfusion serum samples were used for determination of the organ donor CMV serostatus. CONCLUSION: The low risk of TA CMV infection observed in transplant patients who received standard blood components in our study should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of programs that provide CMV-safe blood components for this population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".