MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024701228 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000003307

Recent Trends of Infectious Complications Following Heart Transplantation

2020· article· en· W3024701228 on OpenAlexaff
Ashrit Multani, Yasbanoo Moayedi, Alfredo Puing, E. Henricksen, Donn W. Garvert, Carlos A. Gómez, Maxime Tremblay‐Gravel, Paul E. Bunce, Helen Luikart, Heather J. Ross, Kiran K. Khush, José G. Montoya, Jeffrey J. Teuteberg

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunosuppressionTransplantationHeart transplantationInternal medicineLung transplantationNocardiaAspergillosisImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation is a life-saving procedure that has seen improvements in transplant and patient outcomes due to advances in immunosuppression and prevention of posttransplantation infectious episodes (IEps). This study systematically evaluates IEps in the modern era of heart transplantation at Stanford University Medical Center. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review that includes 279 consecutive adult heart transplantation recipients from January 2008 to September 2017. Baseline demographic, clinical, serological, and outcomes information were collected. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess survival stratified by IEp occurrence within the first year. RESULTS: A total of 600 IEps occurred in 279 patients (2.15 IEps per patient) during a median follow-up period of 3 years. Overall survival was 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.2-88.4) at 1 year posttransplantation for those with any IEp compared with 93.0% (95% CI, 87.2-96.4) in those without IEp (P = 0.07). Bacterial IEps were the most common (n = 375; 62.5%), followed by viral (n = 180; 30.0%), fungal (n = 40; 6.7%), and parasitic (n = 5; 0.8%). IEps by Gram-negative bacteria (n = 210) outnumbered those by Gram-positive bacteria (n = 142). Compared with prior studies from our center, there was a decreased proportion of viral (including cytomegalovirus), fungal (including Aspergillus spp. and non-Aspergillus spp. molds), and Nocardia infections. There were no IEps due to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Pneumocystis jirovecii, or Toxoplasma gondii. CONCLUSIONS: A significant reduction in viral, fungal, and Nocardia IEps after heart transplantation was observed, most likely due to advancements in immunosuppression and preventive strategies, including pretransplant infectious diseases screening and antimicrobial prophylaxis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207