Poor Predictive Value of Cytomegalovirus (CMV)-- Specific T Cell Assays for the Development of CMV Retinitis in Patients with AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the potential clinical utility of using a cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific T cell immunoassay to determine the risk of developing new-onset CMV retinitis (CMVR) in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). METHODS: CMV-specific T cell assays were performed by multiparameter flow cytometry using stored peripheral blood mononuclear cells that had been obtained in an observational study 2-6 months before new-onset CMVR was diagnosed in case patients (at a study visit during which a dilated ophthalmologic examination revealed no evidence of CMVR) and at the same study visit in control subjects (matched by absolute CD4(+) T cell count at entry) who did not subsequently develop retinitis during 1-6 years of study follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in CMV-specific CD4(+) or CD8(+) T cell interferon-gamma or interleukin-2 expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from case patients and control subjects. Although there were trends toward lower percentages and absolute numbers of CMV-specific, cytokine-expressing CD8(+) T cells with a "late memory" phenotype (CD27(-)CD28(-)) as well as with an "early memory" phenotype (CD27(+)CD28(+)CD45RA(+)) in case patients than in control subjects, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Many studies have reported that CMV-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses distinguish patients with active CMVR (i.e., who lack CMV-protective immunity) from those with inactive CMVR after immune restoration by antiretroviral treatment (i.e., who have CMV-protective immunity). However, the multiple CMV-specific immune responses we measured do not appear to have clinical utility for predicting the risk for patients with AIDS of developing new-onset CMVR with sufficient accuracy to be used in guiding therapeutic management.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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".