MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022081564 · doi:10.1159/000184493

Demonstration by Light Microscopy of Cytomegalovirus on a Renal Biopsy of a Renal Allograft Recipient: Confirmation by Immunohistochemistry and in situ Hybridization

2008· article· en· W2022081564 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Payton, Paul S. Thorner, Allison A. Eddy, Herman Yeger, Reuben Baumal

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journals · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePathologyTransplantationBiopsyRenal biopsyCytomegalovirusPeritubular capillariesImmunohistochemistryAcute tubular necrosisImmunoelectron microscopyKidneyHerpesviridaeInternal medicineImmunologyVirusViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 14-year-old boy with end-stage renal failure secondary to reflux nephropathy received a renal transplant and was immunosuppressed with prednisone, azathioprine, and Minnesota antilymphoblast globulin, followed by cyclosporine A. A renal biopsy was performed 43 days post-transplantation because of fever and an elevated serum creatinine. The biopsy showed a mild interstitial lymphocytic infiltrate and immunosuppression was not changed. A second renal biopsy was performed 66 days after transplantation because of a persistent elevation of the serum creatinine following a cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. CMV inclusions were seen by light microscopy (LM) in glomerular and peritubular capillary endothelial cells and tubular epithelial cells but no viral inclusions were present on the grids examined by electron microscopy (EM). However, the inclusions seen by LM were confirmed as CMV by immunohistochemistry, using polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies to CMV, and by in situ hybridization, using a biotinylated CMV DNA probe, emphasizing the usefulness of these techniques when studies by EM are not contributory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journalsSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207