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 OpenAlex
Marina Varga, Ádám Remport, Krisztina Czebe, É. Toronyi, Enikő Sárváry, Imre Fehérvári, Beáta Sulyok, J. Járay

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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