Transplanting kidneys from CMV-seropositive donors to CMV-seronegative recipients is not associated with poorer renal allograft function or survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative recipients of renal allografts from CMV-seropositive donors (D+/R-) have a higher rate of acute rejection than other renal transplant recipients. A relationship between CMV infection/disease and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) has been proposed from animal studies, although human studies have been inconclusive. The objective of this study was to determine if CMV seromatching has an effect on renal allograft function and allograft survival. METHODS: A retrospective single centre study was carried out in 333 first cadaveric transplant recipients from January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1997. The primary end-point was creatinine clearance at 3 years post-transplant in groups based on CMV seromatching. The secondary end-point was renal allograft survival. RESULTS: Mean creatinine clearance 3 years post-transplant was 53.4 ml/min/1.73 m2 of body surface area. There was no significant difference in the mean creatinine clearance for groups formed on the basis of CMV seromatching. Delayed graft function and acute rejection were associated with a lower creatinine clearance at 3 years and reduced overall graft survival [hazard ratios 2.35 (1.56-3.54) (P<0.001) and 1.57 (1.0-2.46) (P = 0.046), respectively]. Considering the end-point of graft loss due to acute rejection (censoring for death with a functioning graft) identified the D+/R- group as having an increased hazard of graft loss due to acute rejection [hazard ratio 3.12 (1.16-8.57) (P = 0.024)]. CONCLUSIONS: The D+/R- group does not appear to have poorer renal allograft function 3 years post-transplant. This group does, however, have an increased risk of early allograft loss due to acute rejection.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".