MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cytomegalovirus Infections Following Reduced-Intensity Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation.

2004· article· en· W2594464923 on OpenAlexaff
Ryotaro Nakamura, Sandra Cohen, Joycelynne Palmer, Ghislaine Hawkins, Bernard Tegtmeier, Ricardo Spielberger, Eileen Smith, James I. Ito, Margaret O’Donnell, David Smith, John A. Zaia, Stephen J. Forman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFludarabineTransplantationMelphalanBusulfanSurgerySerostatusInternal medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCyclophosphamideChemotherapyImmunologyViral loadHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation is increasingly used for patients who are at high risk for mortality following conventional full-intensity regimens. Defining the risk of CMV-related events in this growing modality has a significant implication in future immunologic interventions to improve their transplant outcomes. Therefore, we analyzed 160 patients at risk for CMV (R+ and/or D+) who received a reduced intensity transplant (RIT) between May 2000 and February 2004 from either a matched-related (n=91) or unrelaed donor (n=69) under the City of Hope IRB protocol #02047. The median age of the cohort was 51 (range: 15–71) and recipient/donor CMV serostatus was; R+D+=87, R+D-=44, R-D+=29. Conditioning regimens were reduced but myeloablative (fludarabine + melphalan or busulfan) in 124 or truly non-myeloablative (TBI 200cGy +/− fludarabine) in 36 patients. Fourteen received a bone marrow graft and the remaining 146 received PBSC graft. GVHD prophylaxis consisted of cyclosporine and mycophenolate +/− short course of methotrexate. CMV reactivation was monitored by shell vial blood culture (BC) twice a week from d21 until d100 or longer if clinically indicated. Additional monitoring with quantitative PCR was available in 57 patients. Preemptive therapy with ganciclovir was started at the first positive BC at 5mg/kg twice a day for a week, followed by maintenance therapy for 5 weeks. Of 160 patients, at the time of analysis 94 patients are alive with a median follow up of 12.2 months. The actuarial probabilities of overall survival, disease-free survival, and relapse for the entire cohort at 1 year were 55.9 %, (95%CI: 51.1–60.5), 40.4% (95% CI: 37.1–43.7), and 40.1% (95%CI: 34.8–46.2), respectively. Grade 2–4 acute GVHD occurred in 91 (56%) patients. Eighty-one patients developed CMV reactivation (actuarial probability of 52+/−4%) at the median of 44 days post-transplant (range: d20-d216, 8 after d100). Of these, 42 (52%) had either persistent or recurrent reactivation. Nineteen patients (12%) developed CMV disease (8 with pneumonitis, 11 with GI tract) at the median onset of 56 days (range d28-d591: 5 after d100). Seven of these 19 patients had both BC and PCR data, which were consistent each other in all but one. CMV viremia itself did not predict poorer survival (p=NS), but CMV disease was associated with lower overall survival (37% vs. 65%, p=0.02). The univariate analysis revealed two major findings: 1) CMV seropositive patients were at seven times the ‘hazard’ (HR: 7.2, 95%CI: 2.3–22.9) for CMV reactivation compared to those who were CMV seronegative (p<0.001); and 2) patients who received a true non-myeloablative regimen were at decreased ‘risk’ for CMV reactivation compared to those who received fludarabine + melphalan or busulfan (HR: 0.42, 95%CI: 0.2–0.8) (p<0.01). In multivariate analysis these factors remained significant. In summary, our data demonstrate the significant incidence of CMV reactivation and disease in RIT, but true non-myeloablative transplants may have lower risk. Future immunologic or pharmacologic interventions should include RIT patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research→French-language works237,207→