MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141658245 · doi:10.1111/ctr.12571

<i>Simkania negevensis</i> and acute cellular rejection in lung transplant recipients

2015· article· en· W2141658245 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alainna Jamal, Mariângela Ribeiro Resende, Taísa Prochnow, Ian D. McGilvray, Joseph M. Pilewski, M. Crespo, L.G. Singer, Kenneth R. McCurry, Jay K. Kolls, Shaf Keshavjee, W. Conrad Liles, Shahid Husain

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineLung transplantationBronchoalveolar lavageInternal medicineTransplantationLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simkania negevensis infection has been hypothesized to play a role in lung transplant rejection. The incidence of S. negevensis infection and its association with acute cellular rejection (ACR) were determined in a prospective cohort study of 78 lung transplant recipients (LTRs) in Toronto, Canada, and Pittsburgh, USA, from July 2007 to January 2010. Simkania negevensis testing was detected by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The relationship between S. negevensis and ACR was examined using Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear and latent mixed models. Cumulative incidence estimates for time-to-ACR in S. negevensis PCR-positive vs. PCR-negative LTRs were 52.7% vs. 31.1% at six months and 68.9% vs. 44.6% at one yr, respectively. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward a higher risk of ACR among S. negevensis PCR-positive vs. PCR-negative LTRs in all statistical models.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207