Transfusion‐related <scp>Epstein‐Barr</scp> virus (<scp>EBV</scp>) infection: A multicenter prospective cohort study among pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (<scp>TREASuRE</scp> study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is carried in the blood of most adults, and transfusion-related infections have been reported. EBV is particularly deleterious in immunosuppressed transplant patients. The aim was to determine if EBV transmission occurred through leukodepleted blood product transfusion in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective Canadian multi-center cohort study includes 156 allogeneic HSCT pediatric recipients. The association between EBV and transfusion was analyzed using Cox regressions. EBV infection, defined by a PCR+ test in the blood of seronegative recipients of an EBV-negative graft, was monitored in order to correlate the recipient EBV strain with that of the blood donors. EBV genotypes were determined by PCR amplification followed by DNA sequencing at two loci (EBNA3b and LMP1). RESULTS: No statistically significant associations were found between transfusions and EBV. One case of post-transplant EBV infection was identified among the 21 EBV-seronegative recipients receiving an EBV-negative graft. A total of 22 blood donors were retraced to determine whether the recipient's EBV strain matched that of a donor. One donor strain showed 100% sequence homology at the EBNA3b locus, but differed by one or two point mutations and by a 132-bp deletion at the LMP1 locus. The blood donor in question was alone among the 22 donors to show amplifiable virus in plasma. Blood from this donor readily produced an immortalized lymphoblastoid cell line in culture. CONCLUSION: While considered a rare event, EBV transmission through transfusion may occur in the context of severe immunosuppression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".