MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in a Liver Transplant Recipient and Guidelines for Donor SARS Screening

2003· article· en· W2075070268 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deepali Kumar, Raymond Tellier, Ryan Draker, Gary Levy, Atul Humar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOutbreakSevere acute respiratory syndromePneumoniaMalaiseCoronavirusIntensive care medicineEtiologyRespiratory systemEpidemiologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)PediatricsInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Virology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a recently described infectious entity with salient features of fever, headache and malaise, with rapid progression to pneumonitis. The etiology of SARS is likely a novel coronavirus. During the winter of 2003, an outbreak of SARS involving several hospitals occurred in Toronto, Canada. We describe a patient post liver transplant who contracted SARS and died during the outbreak, with subsequent infection of family and several health-care workers. A novel coronavirus was detected in respiratory specimens by PCR. Due to the potential severity of SARS in transplant recipients and the large number of cases of SARS in the community, in order to avoid transmission of SARS from a donor, we developed guidelines for SARS screening of organ donors. A screening tool based on potential hospital SARS exposure, clinical symptoms, and epidemiological exposure was used to stratify donors as high, intermediate or low risk for SARS. As SARS spreads throughout the world, it may become an increasingly significant problem for transplant patients and programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations139
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207