MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021779650 · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181949e09

Probabilistic Modeling of Cytomegalovirus Infection Under Consensus Clinical Management Guidelines

2009· article· en· W2021779650 on OpenAlexaffabout
Svetlana Dmitrienko, Robert Balshaw, Gerardo Machnicki, R. Jean Shapiro, Paul Keown

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytomegalovirusCytomegalovirus infectionProbabilistic logicMedicineIntensive care medicineImmunologyVirologyComputer scienceHuman cytomegalovirusHerpesviridaeViral diseaseHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Artificial intelligenceVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common viral pathogen after renal transplantation and remains a major therapeutic challenge with important clinical and economic implications from both direct and indirect consequences of infection. METHODS: This 5-year study modeled the relationship between CMV infection and biopsy-proven graft rejection, graft loss, or death after renal transplantation in an inception cohort using Canadian consensus guidelines for CMV management as a component of a detailed cost-analysis of viral infection. RESULTS: Probabilities of CMV viremia and syndrome/disease among 270 sequential graft recipients were 0.27 and 0.09, respectively; 91% of cases occurred in the first 6 months. Probability of CMV infection as the first event was 0.29, with a probability of subsequent biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) of 0.05 (mean: 62+/-26 days, range: 32-85 days), whereas the probability of BPAR as the first event was 0.18, with a probability of subsequent CMV infection of 0.38 (mean: 63+/-31, range: 27-119 days). Probability of freedom from both CMV infection and BPAR throughout the period of observation was 0.53. Time-dependent Cox analysis showed that neither donor/recipient CMV risk stratum nor CMV infection influenced the risks of BPAR (P=0.24; P=0.74) or of graft loss or death (P=0.26; P=0.34). In contrast, BPAR significantly increased the risk of both subsequent CMV infection (hazard ratio=1.77, P=0.03) and of graft loss or death (hazard ratio=8.31, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although current antiviral therapy seems to mitigate the reported deleterious effects of CMV infection on BPAR or graft survival, BPAR remains a significantly risk factor for both CMV infection and functional graft survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207