MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158397663 · doi:10.1556/oh.2008.28324

Cytomegalovirus infection after solid-organ transplantation, its risk factors, direct and indirect effects and prevention strategies

2008· review· hu· W2158397663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marina Varga, Ádám Remport, Krisztina Czebe, É. Toronyi, Enikő Sárváry, Imre Fehérvári, Beáta Sulyok, J. Járay

Bibliographic record

VenueOrvosi Hetilap · 2008
Typereview
Languagehu
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolid organCytomegalovirusMedicineTransplantationCytomegalovirus infectionOrgan transplantationIntensive care medicineImmunologyInternal medicineHuman cytomegalovirusHerpesviridaeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirusViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human cytomegalovirus is widely prevalent among human population and it is the most common viral pathogen that affects both the graft's and solid-organ transplant recipient's survival. The risk is highest in donor-seropositive, recipient-seronegative pairing transplantation. These recipients carry increased risk of developing symptomatic primary CMV infection; however, other risk factors may have an impact on cytomegalovirus activation as well: intensity of immunosuppression, type of organ transplanted, rejection and/or treatment for rejection, HLA-mismatch between recipient and donor, certain HLA-types of the recipient, female sex etc. Cytomegalovirus infection in transplant patients has been associated with both direct (symptoms) and indirect effects which are derived from the immunomodulating impact of the virus such as cellular effects and cytokine expression or systemic immune suppression leading to other opportunistic infections. Prevention of the direct and indirect effects of cytomegalovirus infection is the therapeutic goal in transplanted patients. Most transplant centers use either universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy to prevent the infection. The advantages and disadvantages of these two preventive strategies and current evidence-based recommendations for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid-organ transplant recipients are discussed according to others' and the authors' own observations. According to recommendations of the American and Canadian Societies of Transplantation, most of the centers--after analyzing of the CMV-infection risk factors of the recipients--divide them into three groups: high-, moderate- and low-risk groups. The preventive strategy is attached to the risk-group type. In the high-risk group (R-/D+ and lung transplant patients) the use of the universal prophylaxis is necessary. The patients administered anti-lymphocyte antibodies (ATG, ALG or OKT3) need selective (subtype of universal) prophylaxis. Among the moderate-risk patients (R+/D+ or R+/D-) the doctors may choose either universal prophylaxis or preemptive therapy. Selection of a strategy requires consideration of patient-specific factors as well as practical considerations such as available resources. For avoidance of the indirect effects of CMV infection universal prophylaxis is preferred. The use of preventive proceedings in low-risk patients is the matter of the center's decision.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrvosi HetilapSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207