MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586203183 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1835

Relevance of graft and donor on CMV transmission in seronegative recipients of solid organ transplantation

2016· article· en· W2586203183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cristina Hernandez, Carlos Cervera, Curtis Mabilangan, Jutta Preiksaitis

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSolid organTransplantationTransmission (telecommunications)Clinical significanceRelevance (law)Organ donationOrgan transplantationIntensive care medicineVirologyImmunologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic pathogen after solid organ transplantation (SOT). For CMV seronegative recipients, the risk of CMV infection transmitted from seropositive donors is up to 50%. The ability of the donor's graft to transmit CMV has been scarcely studied. Methods. A retrospective study (2000–2011) was performed to assess CMV IgG seroconversion in high-risk (CMV D + /R-) adult and pediatric recipients of solid organ transplantation at the University of Alberta Hospital and Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton. Results. Out of 409 high risk patients, 284 patients (69%) seroconverted for CMV during follow-up (median 369 days, IQR 205–811) and 65% at two years (figure 1). Almost 70% of patients who seroconverted (198/284) had a positive CMV DNAemia before or 30 days after the first detectable CMV Ig G. The stratified allograft, different rates of seroconversion at 2 years follow-up were observed, with the highest observed for lung and liver transplant recipients (78.6% and 68% respectively); 54% for kidneys and heart patients had the lowest rate (46%) (P = 0.004). Analyzing donors who donated to at least 2 seronegative recipients, 65 donors donated graft to 151 recipients. Fifteen recipients were excluded from this analysis because inadequate follow-up, 57 donors and 128 recipients were therefore analyzed. At 2 years of follow-up, 9 out of 57 donors (16%) did not transmit CMV to any recipient (7 Hearts, 5 Kidneys, 4 Lungs, 3 Livers and 2 others; 2.3 recipients per donor), 21 donors transmitted CMV inconsistently to their different recipients (4/6 hearts, 10/14 lungs, 4/13 kidney, 6/12 liver, 1/4 other) and 27 donors transmitted CMV to all recipients (3 hearts, 11 lungs, 19 kidneys, 18 liver, 6 other). Conclusion. At two years post-transplant, 35% of high-risk recipients did not seroconvert for CMV. The risk of transmission was different among allografts, being higher for lung transplant recipients. Despite recipient characteristics, some donors were less likely to transmit CMV and in up to 16% of donors there was no CMV transmission at two years post-transplant. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207