MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242893698 · doi:10.1086/315668

Reply

2000· article· en· W4242893698 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Boivin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Gentile et al. [1], who expressed interest in our recent work [2]. They reported that in a small prospective study of 23 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects with lymphoma, pp150 antigenemia had a poor sensitivity (43%) compared with pp65 antigenemia (sensitivity, 86%) and viremia (sensitivity, 57%) in detecting cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease. As pointed out by Gentile et al., it is difficult to compare the results of the 2 studies, since different methodologies (monoclonal antibodies vs. reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) were used to detect pp150. However, it is interesting to note that we detected pp150 CMV mRNA in peripheral blood leukocytes from 50.0% of HIV-infected patients with CMV disease and 16.7% of subjects without CMV disease. These numbers are similar to those of Gentile et al., who detected pp150 antigenemia in 43% and 19% of HIV-infected subjects with and without CMV disease, respectively. We found an association between the detection of pp150 mRNA in leukocytes and the presence of CMV disease, but, similar to findings in the study by Gentile et al., such an association was not found in a multivariate analysis after controlling for the viral DNA load in leukocytes. Furthermore, levels of pp150 CMV transcripts (as determined semiquantitatively in our study) were not associated with CMV disease. In both studies and as reported by others [3–5], detection of the late CMV pp150 mRNA or protein was highly specific for the diagnosis of CMV disease. As mentioned in our study, similar specificity can be achieved by performing a CMV PCR test on plasma, which is more convenient for assessing the circulating virus load on leukocytes than RT-PCR. Gentile et al. concluded by suggesting that the clinical value of pp150 antigenemia is inferior to that of pp65 antigenemia for monitoring patients at high risk for CMV disease. This might be the case, but we did not make such a comparison in our study. Of interest, Gerna et al. [6] recently reported that detection of another late CMV transcript (pp67) by nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) was less sensitive but slightly more specific than pp65 antigenemia for the detection of CMV infection (as defined as a positive CMV PCR test on leukocytes) in solid organ and bone marrow transplant recipients. However, other groups have reported a higher sensitivity of NASBA over pp65 antigenemia for the detection of CMV infection in renal-allograft recipients [7]. Prospective evaluations of these different methodologies still need to be performed, using standardized predetermined end points for each different group of immunocompromised subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0440.037
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207