Clinical consequences of human herpesvirus‐6 <scp>DNA</scp> emia in peripheral blood in pediatric liver transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significance of HHV6 DNAemia after solid organ transplantation has not been fully determined. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of HHV6 DNAemia in pediatric liver transplant recipients and to describe the associated clinical characteristics and outcomes. This was a retrospective case-control study. Eligible liver transplant patients aged ≤ 18 yr with HHV6 DNAemia were matched with two subjects without HHV6 DNAemia. Matching was by age ± 6 months. Among 154 subjects, 25 patients (16%) had HHV6 DNAemia detected by PCR in whole blood or plasma (M:F ratio = 0.9:1). While 28% of subjects with DNAemia (7/25) had symptoms consistent with HHV6 infection, active infection was detected in only four subjects (2.6% of liver transplant patients). The major symptoms/signs were fever, vomiting, lethargy, splenomegaly, bone marrow suppression, and elevated transaminases. The prevalence of DNAemia due to other herpesviruses in cases vs. controls was EBV 56% vs. 60%, CMV 12% vs. 12%, HHV7 20% vs. 12%; p value is not significant for all pairwise comparisons. HHV6 DNAemia in pediatric liver transplant patients is not an uncommon entity. While the clinical relevance is still not entirely established, active HHV6 infection and attributable symptoms are relatively rare.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".