Clinical impact of human herpesvirus 6 infection after liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reactivation of human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) appears to be common after transplant. Viral reactivation may result in febrile illness and may also play an immunomodulatory role that leads to indirect effects such as opportunistic infections and rejection. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical impact of HHV-6 infection after liver transplantation including both direct and indirect effects. METHODS: This was a prospective single center cohort study of 200 consecutive patients undergoing liver transplantation. Systemic serial HHV-6 viral load measurements and all clinical outcomes including development of opportunistic infections, cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, and rejection were determined. RESULTS: HHV-6 infection (defined as viral load > or = 2 log10 copies/microg input DNA) occurred in 56/200 (28%) patients. Symptomatic disease attributable to HHV-6 alone occurred in 2/200 (1%) patients. Univariate analysis revealed HHV-6 infection was associated with the development of opportunistic infection and CMV disease. In a multivariate analysis designed to control for the level of immunosuppression, the risk of opportunistic infection increased by 3.68-fold in patients with HHV-6 infection (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.86-7.27; P=0.001). In a similar multivariate analysis, the risk of CMV disease increased by 3.59-fold in patients with HHV-6 infection (95% CI, 1.53-8.44; P=0.003). HHV-6 infection was not associated with rejection except in the subgroup of patients with rejection after 30 days posttransplant (odds ration 2.27; 95% CI, 1.09-4.77; P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: HHV-6 reactivation after transplant is common and is associated with the development of opportunistic infections and CMV disease and possibly with a subgroup of acute rejection episodes. HHV-6 infection likely has a significant impact in transplant recipients through indirect effects of viral replication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".