A Randomized Trial of Ganciclovir versus Ganciclovir Plus Immune Globulin for Prophylaxis Against Epstein-Barr Virus Related Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transplant recipients who are Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-seronegative and receive organs from seropositive donors (EBV D+/R-) are at increased risk for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) and may benefit from antiviral prophylaxis. We performed a multi-center trial assessing two different antiviral regimens and their effect on EBV replication. METHODS: EBV D+/R- solid organ transplant recipients were randomized to receive either ganciclovir and placebo or ganciclovir and immunoglobulin (IG) for 3 months. Following this, patients were unblinded and IG patients received additional IG therapy until 6 months. EBV viral loads were done at least monthly. RESULTS.: Thirty-four patients (25 pediatric, 9 adult) completed the protocol (16 placebo; 18 IG). The incidence of a detectable viral load within the first year posttransplant was 13/16 (81.3%) in the ganciclovir arm vs. 13/18 (72.2%) in the ganciclovir and IG arm (P=0.8). Time to first detectable viral load, and time to high-level viral load were not significantly different. By repeated measures ANOVA analysis, and by estimation of viral load AUC, no significant effect of randomization group was observed on EBV viral loads. PTLD developed in 3 (8.8%) patients (all in IG arm; P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in EBV viral load suppression was observed when ganciclovir was compared with ganciclovir and IG in high-risk EBV D+/R- 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".