Utility of a Monitoring Strategy for Human Herpesviruses 6 and 7 Viremia After Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reactivation of human herpesvirus (HHV)-6 and HHV-7 has been linked to various posttransplant adverse events through immunomodulatory effects. The potential utility of monitoring for HHV-6 and HHV-7 viremia remains unclear. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 129 liver transplant recipients were randomized to be monitored in real-time for HHV-6 and HHV-7 viremia by polymerase chain reaction at regular intervals from 0 to 12 weeks after transplantation ("monitoring" group) or to undergo usual care ("no-monitoring" group). Therapeutic intervention for a positive polymerase chain reaction result included reduction in immunosuppression and preemptive antiviral therapy, at the discretion of the attending team. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse events indirectly attributable to viral reactivation (including opportunistic infection, graft rejection and severe hepatitis C virus recurrence). RESULTS: In the "monitoring" group, HHV-6 and HHV-7 viremia occurred in 23 of 64 patients (35.9%) and 21 of 64 patients (32.8%) patients, respectively. We found no cases of symptomatic HHV-6 and HHV-7 disease. Some therapeutic interventions were performed in 59.1% of viremic episodes. There were no differences in cumulative incidence of the primary outcome between the "monitoring" and "no-monitoring" groups at 1 year (58.7% vs. 52.3%; odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.55) or at 5 years after transplantation (79.0% vs. 70.3%; odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-1.42). However, we found a trend toward a lower incidence of graft rejection at year 1 in the "monitoring" group (30.2% vs. 44.6%; P=0.091). CONCLUSION: In this first trial, no benefit could be demonstrated from routine monitoring of HHV-6 and HHV-7 viremia in graft or patient outcome after liver transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".