Community-acquired respiratory viral infections in lung transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Community-acquired respiratory virus (CARV) infections are a significant cause of morbidity and sometimes mortality in lung transplant recipients (LTRs); this review will focus on the most recent advances in this field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent advancements in molecular diagnostics have resulted in the detection of higher rates of CARVs in LTRs. Persistence of rhinovirus has been implicated in the development of acute and chronic rejection, whereas the role of bocavirus remains uncertain. The data on the association of CARV infections with acute or chronic rejection remain less. A recent systematic review failed to show an association between CARV infections and acute or chronic rejection. Different routes of administration of antiviral medications, vaccines and newer promising antiviral medications are being evaluated to assess efficacy and safety. Similarly, newer strategies of vaccination may potentiate the immune response in these patients. SUMMARY: With current advanced investigating tools, the full impact of CARV infections in LTR is increasingly coming to realization. Research for novel effective treatments and improved responses to current and new vaccines is ongoing; they would provide great benefit in solving this complex and ever-evolving problem.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".