MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147323420 · doi:10.1086/379834

Epstein‐Barr Virus (EBV) Early‐Antigen Serologic Testing in Conjunction with Peripheral Blood EBV DNA Load as a Marker for Risk of Posttransplantation Lymphoproliferative Disease

2003· article· en· W2147323420 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Carpentier, Bruce Tapiéro, Fernando Álvarez, Carole Viau, Caroline Alfieri

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsSerologyImmunologyVirologyLymphoproliferative diseaseLymphoproliferative disordersMedicineVirusAntigenEpstein–Barr virusPeripheral bloodAntibodyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) early-antigen (EA) serologic profile was examined in conjunction with peripheral blood EBV DNA load, to assess its value in evaluating the risk of developing posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). The cohort included 26 pediatric recipients of solid-organ transplants, 6 of whom developed PTLD. All 6 patients had high peripheral blood EBV DNA loads. Of the remaining 20 patients who did not develop PTLD, 14 had high EBV DNA loads, and 6 had low EBV DNA loads. None of the patients who developed PTLD had significant EA immunoglobulin G (IgG) titers. However, all 14 patients with high EBV DNA loads and without PTLD had high EA IgG titers, either at the time of initial high EBV DNA load or during the ensuing weeks. Here, we report that EBV DNA load analysis, combined with EA serologic analysis, is a potentially useful prognostic marker for evaluating the risk of developing PTLD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207