Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Cells, Tissues, and Organs and the Risk of Transmission Through Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised concerns for programs overseeing donation and transplantation of cells, tissues, and organs (CTO) that this virus might be transmissible by transfusion or transplantation. Transplant recipients are considered particularly vulnerable to pathogens because of immunosuppression, and SARS-CoV-2 is likely to generate complications if contracted. Several signs and symptoms observed in COVID-19 positive patients reflect damage to multiple organs and tissues, raising the possibility of extrapulmonary SARS-CoV-2 infections and risk of transmission. At the beginning of the pandemic, a consensus has emerged not to consider COVID-19 positive patients as potential living or deceased donors, resulting in a global decrease in transplantation procedures. Medical decision-making at the time of organ allocation must consider safely alongside the survival advantages offered by transplantation. To address the risk of transmission by transplantation, this review summarizes the published cases of transplantation of cells or organs from donors infected with SARS-CoV-2 until January 2021 and assesses the current state of knowledge for the detection of this virus in different biologic specimens, cells, tissues, and organs. Evidence collected to date raises the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection and replication in some CTO, which makes it impossible to exclude transmission through transplantation. However, most studies focused on evaluating transmission under laboratory conditions with inconsistent findings, rendering the comparison of results difficult. Improved standardization of donors and CTO screening practices, along with a systematic follow-up of transplant recipients could facilitate the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk by transplantation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".