Clinical Utility of Molecular Surveillance for Cytomegalovirus After Antiviral Prophylaxis in High-Risk Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease after discontinuation of prophylaxis is a significant problem for CMV-seronegative recipients of CMV-seropositive organs (donor seropositive and recipient seronegative [D+/R-]). Virologic monitoring after prophylaxis has been proposed as a way to prevent late-onset disease. METHODS: We reviewed the efficacy of this strategy. CMV D+/R- organ transplant recipients received 3 to 6 months of antiviral prophylaxis, and then viral loads were performed weekly for 8 weeks. Preemptive antiviral therapy was initiated at a predefined threshold. RESULTS: Seventy-one CMV D+/R- patients were assessed. Symptomatic CMV disease occurred in 29 of 71 (40.8%) patients during the first-year posttransplant. A significant portion of disease occurred only after the 8-week surveillance period (n=16). Viremia occurred in 19 of 71 (26.8%) patients during the 8-week surveillance. Preemptive therapy was successfully used in only 3 of 19 (15.8%) viremic patients with no further disease development. The remaining patients cleared low-level viremia spontaneously (n=3) or had CMV disease (n=13) either at the first detection of viremia or before preemptive therapy initiation because of rapid viral load doubling (median doubling time 1.1 days). CONCLUSION: CMV D+/R- patients had significant incidence of late-onset disease after prophylaxis. However, the use of a preemptive after prophylaxis strategy was of limited benefit in this group because of rapid viral doubling times and disease occurring after the surveillance period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".