MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571130611 · doi:10.1111/ajt.14195

Transplant Infectious Diseases: A Review of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Published Data

2017· review· en· W2571130611 on OpenAlexaff
Camille N. Kotton, Shirish Huprikar, Deepali Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSerologyImmunologyCytomegalovirusBone marrow transplantOrgan transplantationTransplantationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicineAntibodyBone marrow transplantationViral diseaseHerpesviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) serves to collect data on organ transplants performed in the United States. Although the infectious diseases data are limited and include mostly pretransplant serologies and other nonspecific infection-related outcomes, this multicenter data collection allows for insightful national data and the ability to monitor trends over time. We reviewed the published concise reports for each organ type in SRTR reports containing data from 2005 to 2014, and summarized our findings with respect to cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, general infection, and prophylaxis. Our review highlights a few developments. While rates of donor-recipient CMV serology combinations remain fairly constant over time, there are generally more seronegative donors and recipients among living donor transplants. There has been a reduction in PTLD for pediatric transplant recipients. There has also been a slight reduction in anti-HBV core antibody-positive donor organs and stable reporting of HCV-positive donor organs and HIV-positive recipients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.016
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations49
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207