MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132737364 · doi:10.1086/466529

Herpesvirus Infections in Solid Organ Transplant Patients at High Risk of Primary Cytomegalovirus Disease

2005· article· en· W2132737364 on OpenAlexaff
Raymund R. Razonable, Robert A. Brown, Atul Humar, Emma Covington, Emma Alecock, Carlos V. Payá

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValganciclovirMedicineGanciclovirCytomegalovirusIncidence (geometry)HerpesviridaeVaricella zoster virusTransplantationVirologyBetaherpesvirinaeImmunologyFoscarnetOrgan transplantationHuman cytomegalovirusVirusViral diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epidemiology of infections with 5 human herpesviruses (HHVs) (HHV-6, HHV-7, HHV-8, varicella zoster virus [VZV], and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV]) was investigated during the first year after solid organ transplantation in 263 patients who received oral ganciclovir or valganciclovir prophylaxis. HHV-6B DNAemia was uncommon, HHV-6A DNAemia was not observed, and HHV-7 DNAemia was prevalent. HHV-6 and HHV-7 DNAemia were not significantly associated with cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease, although a trend toward higher incidence of CMV disease was observed in HHV-6 DNAemic patients. VZV and HHV-8 DNAemia were not detected. EBV infection was common, although incidence of high-level EBV DNAemia was low, especially in patients who received valganciclovir prophylaxis. EBV-related posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease was not observed up to 12 months after transplantation. Compared with historic data, data from the present study suggest that antiviral prophylaxis may lower the incidence, prevalence, or level of DNAemia for infection with HHV-6, HHV-8, VZV, and EBV but not for infection with HHV-7.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations114
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207