Late‐onset allograft rejection, cytomegalovirus infection, and renal allograft loss: Is anti‐CMV prophylaxis required following late‐onset allograft rejection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal transplant recipients remain at risk of delayed-onset cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection occurring beyond a complete course of prophylaxis. In this retrospective cohort, all 278 patients who received renal allografts from deceased donors from 2014 to 2016 were followed until September 1, 2019. We determined the effect of early-vs late-onset acute rejection (EAR vs LAR [ie, occurring beyond 12 months after transplantation]) on CMV infection and subsequently long-term allograft outcome. Median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 1186.0 (904.7-1531.2) days. Seventy patients including 49 patients with EAR and 21 with LAR received augmented immunosuppression. In the same interval, 40 patients developed CMV infection (36 patients beyond 90 days after transplantation [90%]). In logistic regression analysis, D+/R- CMV serostatus (OR: 5.5, 95% CI: 2.5-12.2) and LAR (OR: 7.9, 95% CI: 2.8-22.2) significantly increased the risk of CMV infection. In Cox proportional hazard model, delayed-onset CMV infection (HR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.08-5.86) and LAR (HR: 5.46, 95% CI: 2.26-13.14) significantly increased the risk of allograft loss. Patients with LAR are at risk of late-onset CMV infection. Post-LAR, targeted prophylaxis may reduce the risk of CMV infection and subsequently allograft loss. Further studies are required to demonstrate the effect of targeted prophylaxis following LAR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".