MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907790541 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000006801

Simultaneous CMV and <i>Listeria</i> infection following alemtuzumab treatment for multiple sclerosis

2018· article· en· W2907790541 on OpenAlexaff
Agustín Pappolla, Luciana Midaglia, Claudia P. Boix Rodríguez, Adaia Albasanz‐Puig, Mayli Lung, Isabel Ruíz-Camps, Joaquín Castilló, Patricia Mulero, Ángela Vidal‐Jordana, Georgina Arrambide, Breogán Rodrı́guez‐Acevedo, Jaume Sastre‐Garriga, Jordi Río, Manuel Comabella, Ingrid Galán, Mar Tintoré, Xavier Montalbán

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlemtuzumabMultiple sclerosisMedicineListeria monocytogenesCytomegalovirusMeningitisImmunologyRelapsing remittingGanciclovirMonoclonal antibodyListeria infectionMonoclonalListeriaVirologyAntibodyHuman cytomegalovirusPediatricsViral diseaseVirusHerpesviridaeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, produce the rapid depletion of all mature lymphocytes. For this reason, patients are at an increased risk of developing infections due to the reactivation of latent agents or acquired microorganisms. Most infections reported during the phase III trials were mild or moderate in severity, while serious infections were surprisingly uncommon.1 However, during the postmarketing use of alemtuzumab, several opportunistic infections have been reported.2–5 We describe a patient who presented simultaneous cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and Listeria meningitis promptly following the first course of alemtuzumab.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207