Clinical and virologic outcomes in high‐risk adult Epstein‐Barr virus mismatched organ transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) D+/R- organ transplant recipients are a high-risk group for developing post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD). Little data are available for prevention in the adult EBV mismatched population. We conducted a retrospective study of EBV D+/R- organ transplants performed during 2002-2014. Of the 153 patients identified, 82.4% patients received antiviral prophylaxis with valganciclovir for a median of 4.5 months (range: 0.8-22 months) and 36.6% underwent viral load monitoring in the first post-transplant year. EBV viremia developed in 67.2% monitored patients. In viremic patients, immunosuppression was reduced in 20/37(54.1%) in response to viremia and 17/37 (45.9%) received therapeutic dose valganciclovir. In patients with EBV viremia who received valganciclovir and/or had a reduction in immunosuppression and had sufficient viral load time points (n=31), 28 (90.3%) had a significant decline in viral load at day 14 (median log decline 0.49 (0.24-0.64), P<.001) and at day 30 (0.87 (0.52-1.21), P<.001). PTLD developed in 27 (15%) patients (biopsy proven=25, possible=2) at median 8 months (range: 2.4-130) post-transplant with the majority (81.5%) within the first year. In multivariate analysis, viral load monitoring and use of mycophenolate were associated with a lower incidence of PTLD. Antiviral prophylaxis was not associated with a lower risk of PTLD, but viral load monitoring and use of mycophenolate mofetil were protective.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".