Lessons Learned From a Randomized Study of Oral Valganciclovir Versus Parenteral Ganciclovir Treatment of Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: The VICTOR Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The VICTOR study showed comparable efficacy of treatment with intravenous ganciclovir and oral valganciclovir for cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Oral therapy is now recommended treatment in clinical practice and guidelines. The VICTOR biobank was used in a series of post hoc analyses that yielded unique and clinically valuable insights into CMV treatment and pathogenesis. For example, the importance of tailoring therapy to initial viral load, the effect of immunosuppression on outcomes, and the need to continue therapy until undetectable viral load to prevent recurrence and emergence of resistant strains. Data were also used to validate the use of international units (IU) in quantitative measurements of CMV DNAemia, which may help future studies to define relevant cutoffs for treatment guidance. The analyses also showed the importance of inflammation on viral outcomes and identified potential targets for future studies. Here we summarize the valuable lessons learned from analysis of the VICTOR data set and sample repository.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".