Quantitative Analysis of Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Viremia Using the pp65 Antigenemia Assay and the COBAS AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR PCR Test after Blood and Marrow Allogeneic Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of a commercially available qualitative PCR test for plasma (AMPLICOR CMV Test; Roche Diagnostics) and a quantitative PCR test for plasma and leukocytes (COBAS AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR Test; Roche Diagnostics) was evaluated with samples from 50 blood or marrow allogeneic transplant recipients who received short courses of sequential ganciclovir therapy (2 weeks intravenously followed by 2 weeks orally) based on a positive cytomegalovirus (CMV) pp65 antigenemia (AG) assay. The number of persons with a positive CMV test was significantly higher for leukocyte-based assays (AG, 67.5%; PCR, 62.5%) compared to both quantitative and qualitative PCR tests of plasma (42.5 and 35%, respectively). One person developed CMV disease during the study despite a negative AG assay; in this particular case, all PCR assays were found to be positive 10 days before his death. There was a trend for earlier positivity after transplantation and more rapid negativity after initiation of ganciclovir for the tests performed on leukocytes. The mean number of CMV copies as assessed by PCR was significantly higher in leukocytes than in plasma (P = 0.02). Overall, excellent agreement (kappa coefficient, >0.75) was found only between the two PCR assays (qualitative and quantitative) based on plasma. These results suggest that either the pp65 AG assay or the COBAS AMPLICOR CMV MONITOR Test using leukocytes could be used to safely monitor CMV viremia in related allogeneic blood or marrow transplant recipients. Such a strategy will result in preemptive treatment for about two-thirds of the persons with a relatively low rate (<33%) of secondary viremic episodes following short courses of ganciclovir therapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".