MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Surveillance Study of Adenovirus Infection in Adult Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

2005· article· en· W1986899113 on OpenAlexaff
Atul Humar, Deepali Kumar, Tony Mazzulli, Raymund R. Razonable, George Moussa, Carlos V. Payá, Emma Covington, Emma Alecock, Mark D. Pescovitz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViremiaMedicineAsymptomaticAdenovirus infectionInternal medicineGastroenterologyTransplantationImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about adenovirus infections in adult organ transplant recipients. We prospectively assessed adenovirus infection in 263 transplant recipients using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on plasma samples at regular intervals post-transplant. Adenovirus DNA was detected in 19 of 263 patients (7.2%). Viremia by transplant type was: liver (n = 10 of 121 [8.3%]), kidney (n = 6 of 92 [6.5%]) and heart (n = 3 of 45 [6.7%]). Time to viremia onset was within 10 days post-transplant (n = 4), on day 28 (n = 1), on day 100 (n = 7) and between months 6 and 12 (n = 7). At the time of viremia, 11 of 19 (58%) patients had no symptoms, 2 of 19 (10.5%) had gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, 2 of 19 (10.5%) had respiratory symptoms and 4 patients (21%) had vague/non-specific symptoms. All patients recovered spontaneously. Only 1 of 19 (5%) patients had subsequent acute rejection. Adenovirus viremia is relatively common in adult liver, kidney and heart transplant recipients and most infections are asymptomatic, transient and self-limited. No serious clinical sequelae or effects on subsequent acute rejection were observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations132
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207