Risk Factors for Cytomegalovirus Viremia and Disease Developing after Prophylaxis in High-Risk Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) D+/R- solid-organ transplant (SOT) recipients carry increased risk of developing CMV disease; however, other risk factors in these patients have not been delineated. METHODS: We examined 20 demographic and clinical variables for their association with the development of CMV disease, as defined by an independent endpoint committee (IEC) and also by the investigator (investigator treated [IT]), or CMV viremia within 12 months of transplant in D+/R- transplant recipients who received prophylaxis with valganciclovir or oral ganciclovir for 100 days. RESULTS: Recipients with low creatinine clearance (Ccr,<40 mL/min) at screening had a significantly increased hazard of developing IEC-defined CMV disease (hazards ratio [HR]=4.28, confidence interval [CI] 1.69, 10.83). Females were twice as likely (HR=2.19, CI .21, 3.99) to develop IEC-defined CMV disease than males. These variables were associated with an increased risk of IEC-defined CMV disease in time-dependent models. Recipients with blood group A were also more likely to develop IEC-defined CMV disease than those with group O (HR=2.36 CI 1.24, 4.51) in the logistic regression model only. Prophylactic drug, organ type, recipient age, rejection episodes, and maintenance immunosuppression regimen were not associated with IEC-defined CMV disease. Female sex was the only variable associated with the development of CMV viremia (odds ratio [OR]=1.65; CI 1.03, 2.65) and IT CMV disease (OR=1.78; CI 1.08, 2.93). CONCLUSIONS: Low Ccr at screening and blood type A are risk factors for IEC-defined CMV disease, and female sex was a risk factor for IEC- and IT-defined CMV disease and viremia in high-risk SOT recipients. These variables should perhaps be considered when optimizing treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".