Human Herpesvirus–6 Is Associated with Cytomegalovirus Reactivation in Liver Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6) may be a risk factor for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in posttransplant patients, possibly through a direct interaction or through a general immunomodulatory effect. To examine this possibility, 88 liver transplant recipients were monitored with serial HHV-6 polymerase chain reaction (PCR), CMV antigenemia, and CMV plasma viral load. HHV-6 infection was defined by a positive PCR of peripheral blood lymphocytes. Forty-eight (54.4%) of 88 patients had at least 1 positive HHV-6 PCR. CMV recurrence was significantly more common in patients with HHV-6 infection (38/48 patients [79. 2%]), compared with recurrence in those without HHV-6 infection (18/40 patients [45%]; P=.001). Peak CMV viral load was 24, 147+/-6799 copies/mL in patients with HHV-6 infection versus 8391+/-4598 copies/mL in patients without HHV-6 infection (P=.001). Symptomatic CMV disease was more common in patients with HHV-6 infection than it was in those without infection (15/48 patients [31. 3%] vs. 4/10 patients [10.0%]; P=.013). In a multivariate analysis including other risk factors for CMV, HHV-6 infection remained an independent risk factor for CMV disease (P=.013; odds ratio, 7.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-34.72). HHV-6 is associated with CMV infection and disease, thus supporting an interaction between these viruses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".