MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27817007 · doi:10.1155/2002/634318

Epstein-Barr Virus Infection in Transplant Recipients: Sumary of a Workshop on Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment

2002· article· en· W27817007 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Upton Allen, Caroline Alfieri, Jutta K. Preiksaitis, Atul Humar, Dorothy Moore, Bruce Tapiéro, Raymond Tellier, Michael Green, D. A. R. Davies, Diane Hébert, Sheila Weitzman, Martin Petric, Kevan Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMontreal Children's HospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity of AlbertaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan transplantationMedicineDiseaseIntensive care medicineEpstein–Barr virusImmunologyTransplantationVirusComplicationImmune surveillancePathologyInternal medicineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diseases caused by the Epstein-Barr virus are of great significance among organ transplant recipients. One of these diseases, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, is a major complication among organ transplant recipients. Management of this entity is problematic due to the difficulties with laboratory surveillance, diagnosis, prevention and treatment. A group of Canadian and American experts was assembled to discuss these aspects of Epstein-Barr virus diseases in Canadian organ transplant recipients. This report summarizes the relevant background literature and levels of evidence in relation to the outcomes of the deliberations and recommendations by the expert panel.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations53
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207