Cytomegalovirus infection post‐pancreas–kidney transplantation – results of antiviral prophylaxis in high‐risk patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a major pathogen affecting solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients. Prophylactic strategies have decreased the rate of CMV infection/disease among SOT. However, data on the effect of current prophylactic strategies for simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) or pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplant remain limited. We report our experience of CMV prophylaxis in SPK/PAK recipients. METHODS: A total of 130 post-SPK/PAK patients were analyzed retrospectively for the rate of CMV and the risk factors associated with the acquisition of CMV. All patients received antiviral prophylaxis. The follow-up period was one yr post-transplant or until death. RESULTS: The rate of CMV post-SPK/PAK transplant was 24%, 44%, and 8.2% among the whole cohort, the D+/R- and the R+ groups, respectively. Median time of prophylaxis was 49 (0-254) d. In the whole cohort, risk factors for CMV infection/diseases were D+/R- CMV status (odds ratio [OR] = 16.075), preceding non-CMV (infection caused by bacteria or fungi and other viruses) infection (OR = 6.362) and the duration of prophylaxis (OR = 0.984). Among the CMV D+/R- group, non-CMV infection was the only risk factor for CMV disease (OR = 10.7). CONCLUSIONS: Forty-four per cent (25/57) of the D+/R- recipients developed CMV infection/disease despite CMV prophylaxis. Current CMV prophylaxis failed to prevent CMV infection/disease in this group of patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".