Comparison of Presentation, Course, and Outcome of Congenital and Acquired Cytomegalovirus Infection in Twins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most common causes of serious viral intrauterine infections. It is universally distributed among the human population with an average incidence of 0.15 to 2%. Indeed, at least half of the women in the reproductive age have evidence of prior CMV infection. Epidemiology and Pathogenicity However, it is not a usual practice to screen asymptomatic pregnant woman or neonates for CMV. Even if a mother developed a primary CMV infection during pregnancy, up to 90% of the newborns with congenital CMV will be asymptomatic at the time of birth. Only 5 to 7% of the infected babies will be acutely symptomatic, and the typical clinical presentation includes intrauterine growth restriction, microcephaly, various cutaneous manifestations (including petechiae and purpura), hematological abnormalities (particularly resistant thrombocytopenia), hepatosplenomegaly, chorioretinitis, hepatitis, etc. In contrast, acquired CMV infection is extremely unlikely to cause any serious sequelae for the infant. Cases We present a case of congenital and acquired CMV infection in twins with a focus of dissimilarity in presentation, clinical course, and outcome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".