Factors Associated with Post-Transplant Active Epstein-Barr Virus Infection and Lymphoproliferative Disease in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review was undertaken to identify risk factors associated with post-transplant Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) active infection and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) in pediatric and adult recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). A literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies published until 30 June 2020. Descriptive information was extracted for each individual study, and data were compiled for individual risk factors, including, when possible, relative risks with 95% confidence intervals and/or p-values. Meta-analyses were planned when possible. The methodological quality and potential for bias of included studies were also evaluated. Of the 3362 titles retrieved, 77 were included (62 for EBV infection and 22 for PTLD). The overall quality of the studies was strong. Several risk factors were explored in these studies, but few statistically significant associations were identified. The use of anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) was identified as the most important risk factor positively associated with post-transplant active EBV infection and with PTLD. The pooled relative risks obtained using the random-effect model were 5.26 (95% CI: 2.92–9.45) and 4.17 (95% CI: 2.61–6.68) for the association between ATG and post-transplant EBV infection and PTLD, respectively. Other risk factors for EBV and PTLD were found in the included studies, such as graft-versus-host disease, type of conditioning regimen or type of donor, but results are conflicting. In conclusion, the results of this systematic review indicate that ATG increases the risk of EBV infection and PTLD, but the link with all other factors is either nonexistent or much less convincing.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".