The Use of Donor and Recipient Screening for Toxoplasma in the Era of Universal Trimethoprim Sulfamethoxazole Prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Toxoplasmosis is a serious complication of solid organ transplantation. The highest risk of infection and disease occurs in heart recipients with primary infection transmitted by a seropositive donor to a seronegative recipient (donor-recipient mismatch). Toxoplasmosis has been reported to occur in noncardiac transplant recipients; however, no large studies examining the frequency of such events or the need for serologic screening exist. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 1,006 solid organ transplant recipients transplanted in our center between 1984 and 1997 was performed to examine the incidence of Toxoplasma seroconversion, reactivation, and clinical toxoplasmosis and to evaluate the impact of trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) prophylaxis on these outcomes. RESULTS: Pretransplant Toxoplasma seroprevalence was 13.4% in donors and 17.8% in recipients. The incidence of Toxoplasma donor-recipient mismatch was 9.5% during the 14-year study period, and only 39.1% of mismatched recipients received TMP/SMX prophylaxis. Only four patients seroconverted, of whom two had received prophylaxis. There were no cases of clinical disease; either primary or reactivation. CONCLUSIONS: We therefore conclude that in transplant centers with low Toxoplasma seroprevalence, routine screening for Toxoplasma in solid organ donors and recipients is not necessary, particularly in the era of routine TMP/SMX prophylaxis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".