Prevalence and Characteristics of Cytomegalovirus Ocular Disease in Children: A Multi-Center Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of CMV ocular disease in children and to identify associated risk factors for ocular involvement. Design: Retrospective multicenter, cross-sectional study. Methods: Setting: Hospitalized patients screened for CMV viremia by PCR between 2005 and 2018 at four pediatric referral centers. Participants: Seven-hundred and ninety-three children showed CMV viremia (>135 copies/mL by polymerase chain reaction; PCR). Main Outcomes and Measures: (1) Occurrence of ophthalmologic examination. (2) Presence of CMV ocular disease, defined as retinitis, vasculitis, hemorrhage, optic nerve atrophy, or anterior uveitis in the setting of CMV viremia without other identifiable causes. Results: A total of 296/793 (37%) underwent ophthalmologic examination following CMV viremia. A total of23/296 patients (8%) had ocular symptoms prompting evaluation while the rest had eye exams for baseline screening unrelated to CMV viremia. Of these, 13 cases (4% of those with an eye exam) with ocular disease were identified (three congenital CMV, five severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID) status post-stem cell transplantation, three hematologic malignancy status post-stem cell transplantation for two of them, one Evans syndrome status post-stem cell transplantation, and one medulloblastoma status post-bone marrow transplantation). No patients with solid organ transplantation developed CMV ocular disease in our cohort. Conclusion: CMV ocular disease was a rare occurrence in this cohort without an identifiable pattern across sub-groups. Excluding the three congenital CMV cases, nine out of ten patients with CMV ocular disease were status post-stem cell transplantation. We provide integrated screening guidelines based on the best available evidence for this rare condition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".