The Clinical Utility of Whole Blood Versus Plasma Cytomegalovirus Viral Load Assays for Monitoring Therapeutic Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In patients with cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, regular monitoring of viral loads and treatment until negative are recommended. However, with more sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays and cellular peripheral sample types, detection of low-level viremia is achievable. We compared a whole blood real-time PCR with a plasma PCR assay for monitoring therapeutic response. METHODS: Patients enrolled in a trial to treat CMV disease for 21 days had regular viral load monitoring. The results of a plasma-based PCR assay were compared with a real-time PCR assay of whole blood and assessed for their ability to predict recurrence. RESULTS: In 219 evaluable patients, viral loads in plasma versus whole blood demonstrated good correlation but significant difference in absolute value and clearance kinetics. Virus was still detectable by day 21 in 154 of 219 (70.3%) patients with the whole blood versus 105 of 219 (52.1%; P<0.001) patients with the plasma assay. The positive predictive value of persistent plasma viremia at day 21 for virologic recurrence was 41.9% vs. 36.3% for the whole blood assay. In the subset of patients with a negative plasma but positive whole blood at day 21 (n = 49), the incidence of virologic recurrence was similar to that of all patients with a negative plasma assay (23.1% vs. 23.6%). CONCLUSIONS: When treating CMV disease, enhanced detection of residual viremia using a whole blood real-time PCR does not seem to offer significant clinical advantages nor allows for better prediction of recurrence of CMV viremia or disease. The treat-to-negative paradigm may not hold true when such assays are used.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".