Comparative Evaluation of Three Serological Methods for Detection of Human Herpesvirus 8-Specific Antibodies in Canadian Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) has been associated with all types of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), including posttransplantation KS. However, little is known regarding HHV-8 infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients. In this study, we used a variety of serological assays, including in-house-developed enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) utilizing synthetic peptides corresponding to lytic viral antigens (ORFs 65 and K8.1) and a commercial EIA kit based on a whole virus lysate (Advanced Biotechnologies Inc.), as well as latent- and lytyc-antigen-based immunofluorescence assays (IFAs) to determine the seroprevalence of HHV-8 in 42 allogeneic SCT recipients from Canada. Using the two peptide-based EIA methods as for screening, HHV-8-specific antibodies were detected in five (12%) patients between days 21 and 91, although only one (2%) subject was positive for HHV-8-specific antibodies before transplantation. All positive results from these five patients were confirmed by at least one of the IFAs, with an additional patient showing seropositivity before transplantation. However, the commercial EIA was negative at all time points (days -7, 21, and 91) in those five patients. The episodes of seroconversion or reactivation were not associated with sustained viremia, since HHV-8 DNA was not detected by real-time PCR in the corresponding leukocytes and plasma of the seropositive patients. No clinical or laboratory abnormalities were clearly associated with HHV-8 seropositivity. This study confirms the utility of simple peptide-based EIA methods to assess the presence of HHV-8-specific antibodies in immunocompromised patients and emphasizes the need of conducting prospective studies to determine the source of HHV-8 infection in SCT recipients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".