A63 TRANSPLANTATION OF A LIVER ALLOGRAFT FROM A HEPATITIS C VIRUS (HCV) SEROPOSITIVE DONOR WITH PREVIOUS SUSTAINED VIROLOGIC RESPONSE TO AN UNINFECTED RECIPIENT SUFFERING STEROID REFRACTORY ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION WITH NO EVIDENCE OF HCV TRANSMISSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is sustained virologic response (SVR). There is concern that despite achieving SVR, replication-competent HCV may be sequestered at low levels within the liver and could theoretically reactivate with immunosuppression. We report transplantation of a HCV seropositive liver donor, who achieved SVR, into a seronegative patient without HCV reactivation despite profound immunosuppression. Retrospective chart review. We present a 21-year-old male who was HCV seronegative and received a liver transplant from a donor who had been treated for HCV and achieved SVR. The liver recipient, despite developing severe acute graft rejection and undergoing intense immunosuppression with T-cell depleting antibodies, did not become HCV RNA positive with a follow up period of 8 months. The recipient was HCV seronegative before transplant, but became HCV seropositive immediately post-transplant. The antibodies were undetectable after 97 days, in keeping with a passive antibody transmission or B lymphocyte transmission with the graft. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of an HCV seropositive liver allograft transplanted into a HCV negative recipient. This case, therefore, is an encouraging and novel step in liver transplantation, and demonstrates that SVR may be closer to a true “cure” of HCV in the donor population and that, even in circumstances of very potent immunosuppression in the recipient, this SVR is sustained. To our knowledge, this case also contains the first documented example of an HCV antibody decay phenomenon in the recipient post-liver organ transplant. None
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".