MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008774286 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.246

A247 VIRAL LOAD OF EPSTEIN-BARR VIRUS IN PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH NEW ONSET IBD AT DIAGNOSIS AND ON FOLLOW UP: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2020· article· en· W3008774286 on OpenAlexaff
G A Kornitzer, M Rosenstein, Véronique Groleau, Prévost Jantchou, Fabien Touzot, D. V. Godin, Christian Renaud, Philippe Ovetchkine, Colette Deslandres

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineViral loadSerologyInternal medicineInflammatory bowel diseaseImmunologyPopulationRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseVirusCohortEpstein–Barr virusGastroenterologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease are at increased risk for complications associated with Epstein-Barr Virus, such as uncontrolled infection, colitis mimicking IBD, and lymphoproliferative disease. These complications may be due to inherent immune dysfunction or effects of immunomodulating therapies used. We have previously identified that the seroprevalence of EBV in our cohort of IBD patients at time of diagnosis was 44.2%, with prevalence stratified by age as follows: 0 to <10 years 36%, 10 to <17 years 46%, and 17 + years 50%. Aims Our objective is to assess the risk of EBV reactivation in this population, to determine whether patients treated with immunomodulators should be more closely monitored for EBV viral load. Methods Retrospective chart review was done for all patients with new-onset IBD diagnosed at CHU Sainte-Justine over a two-year period, from Jan. 2016 to Dec. 2017. Serum from time of diagnosis was retrieved from the microbiology laboratory for patients with positive EBV serology, and quantitative PCR was performed to assess viral load at diagnosis. 47 of 53 seropositive patients had available serum at time of retrieval. EBV PCR was subsequently performed on serum drawn one to two years after start of immunosuppressants. Results 53 patients were EBV positive at time of diagnosis (EBNA/VCA IgG). Two patients were IgM positive, suggesting recent or active infection. The viral load as measured by quantitative PCR on serum drawn at diagnosis was negative in all retroactively tested patients. Of the two IgM-positive patients, one had known positive quantitative PCR at time of diagnosis. PCR previously tested in clinical follow-up of two seropositive, PCR-negative patients became positive at 7 and 17 months from diagnosis, suggesting viral reactivation. Both patients had received anti-TNF’s and systemic corticosteroids. Viral loads on follow-up are to be assessed for the rest of the cohort. Overall, therapies started within 6 months of diagnosis were similar in the seropositive and seronegative groups, the majority receiving some form of immunosuppression. Within the seropositive group: 66% received corticosteroids, 32.1% Infliximab, 5.7% Adalimumab, and 5.7% Azathioprine. Conclusions Only one patient had active EBV infection with positive PCR at time of diagnosis. All other patients had no sign of active infection based on retroactive PCR’s. While a majority of patients, regardless of EBV serology, receive immunomodulating agents, we currently do not routinely screen for seroconversion in seronegative patients, or for viral load in seropositive patients. We will be assessing viral loads after start of immunomodulation to better understand the potential impact of these agents on disease progression. Funding Agencies 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 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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune DisordersFrench-language works237,207