Prospective Clinical, Virologic, and Immunologic Assessment of COVID-19 in Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have described the clinical features of COVID-19 in solid-organ transplant recipients. However, many have been retrospective or limited to more severe cases (hospitalized) and have not routinely included serial virological sampling (especially in outpatients) and immunologic assessment. METHODS: Transplant patients diagnosed with COVID-19 based on a respiratory sample PCR were prospectively followed up to 90 d. Patients provided consent for convalescent serum samples and serial nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibody (antinucleoprotein and anti-RBD) and viral load, respectively. RESULTS: In the 161 SOT recipients diagnosed with COVID-19, the spectrum of disease ranged from asymptomatic infection (4.3%) to hospitalization (60.6%), supplemental oxygen requirement (43.1%), mechanical ventilation (22.7%), and death (15.6%). Increasing age (OR, 1.031; 95% CI, 1.001-1.062; P = 0.046) and ≥2 comorbid conditions (OR, 3.690; 95% CI, 1.418-9.615; P = 0.007) were associated with the need for supplemental oxygen. Allograft rejection was uncommon (3.7%) despite immunosuppression modification. Antibody response at ≥14 d postsymptoms onset was present in 90% (anti-RBD) and 76.7% (anti-NP) with waning of anti-NP titers and stability of anti-RBD over time. Median duration of nasopharyngeal positivity was 10.0 d (IQR, 5.5-18.0) and shedding beyond 30 d was observed in 6.7% of patients. The development of antibody did not have an impact on viral shedding. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the spectrum of COVID-19 illness in transplant patients. Risk factors for severe disease are identified. The majority form antibody by 2 wk with differential stability over time. Prolonged viral shedding was observed in a minority of patients. Reduction of immunosuppression was a safe strategy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".