The Risk, Prevention, and Outcome of Cytomegalovirus After Pediatric Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A retrospective review of pediatric lung transplant recipients at 14 centers in North America and Europe was conducted to characterize the epidemiology and the risk factors for cytomegalovirus (CMV) and to explore the impact of preventative antiviral therapy. METHODS: Data were recorded for 1 year posttransplant. Associations between CMV and continuous and categorical risk factors were assessed using Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square tests, respectively. Associations between time to CMV and risk factors or survival were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Within 12 months posttransplant, 172 of 577 subjects (29.8%) developed 218 CMV episodes (90 asymptomatic infection, 25 syndrome, and 103 disease). Forty-one subjects developed more than one episode of CMV. Donor or recipient CMV seropositivity was associated with increased risk of CMV episodes. Except for decreased prophylaxis in CMV D-/R- subjects, duration of prophylaxis did not vary by D/R serostatus. For CMV D+ subjects, not being on prophylaxis at the time of CMV episode increased the risk of CMV (D+/R+ hazard ratio 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.4-8.4; D+/R- 1.9, 1.02-3.7). CMV was associated with increased mortality within the first posttransplant year among those with donor or recipient CMV seropositivity (hazard ratio 2.0: 95% confidence interval 1.1-3.6; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: CMV remains a serious complication after pediatric lung transplant, and the impact of prophylaxis is complex.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".