Stabilization of renal function after the first year of follow‐up in kidney transplant recipients treated for significant <scp>BK</scp> polyomavirus infection or <scp>BK</scp> polyomavirus‐associated nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: BK polyomavirus virus (BKPyV) screening and immunosuppression reduction effectively prevent graft loss due to BKPyV-associated nephropathy (BKPVAN) during the first year after transplantation. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of this infection during longer follow-up periods. METHODS: We reviewed the outcome of our screening and immunosuppression reduction protocol in 305 patients who received a kidney transplant between March 2008 and January 2013. Quantitative BKPyV DNA surveillance in plasma was performed at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after transplantation. Patients with significant viremia and/or biopsy-proven BKPVAN were treated with immunosuppression reduction and leflunomide. RESULTS: During the first post-transplant year, 24 patients (7.9%) developed significant viremia at a median time of 95 days, and 18 patients had BKPVAN; 23 of the 24 (7.5%) were treated according to our protocol (group BKV+); 225 patients (73.8%) did not develop any BK viremia (group BKV-). Allograft function was similar in both groups at 1 month post transplantation (P=.87), but significantly worse at 1 year in the BKV+ group (P=.002). Thereafter, kidney function stabilized in the BKV+ group and no differences in patient and graft survival were seen between the groups after a median follow-up of 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the early occurrence of BKPyV replication after transplantation and the short-term decline in renal function. However, early detection of BKPyV replication, prompt diagnosis, and reduction in immunosuppression may offer long-term benefits for graft function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".