Donor Cytomegalovirus Transmission Patterns in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Primary Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of single versus multiple cytomegalovirus (CMV) strain transmission from donor (D+) to seronegative solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients (R-) is uncertain, as is whether "relapsing" recipient infection represents changing strain predominance when multiple strains are transmitted. Here we characterized CMV strain transmission patterns in D+/R- SOT recipients. METHODS: We studied pairs or groups of D+/R- SOT recipients who received organs from a common donor (group A) and recipients who experienced ≥2 waves of CMV DNAemia (group B). CMV in plasma was characterized by genotype-specific real-time PCR for genes gB and gH. RESULTS: Single concordant genotypes were identified in 12 of 18 recipient pairs/group sharing a common donor (group A); at least 6 of 18 (33%) donors transmitted > 1 strain. A single CMV strain was detected in 14 of 15 recipients in group B; only 1 recipient had coinfection. A shift in CMV strain predominance occurred after the first posttransplant year in at least 4 recipients with coinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Using a common donor approach, we confirmed that multiple CMV strain transmission from donors to R- SOT recipients is not uncommon. D+/R- SOT recipients with CMV coinfection can undergo changes in strain predominance in late waves of CMV DNAemia.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".