Serologic follow‐up of solid organ transplant recipients who received organs from donors with reactive syphilis tests: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased procurement of organs from donors with risk factors for blood-borne diseases and the expanding syphilis epidemic have resulted in a growing number of organs transplanted from donors with reactive syphilis serology in our center. Based on guidelines, recipients typically receive therapy shortly after the transplant, but data on outcomes are limited. The primary objective of this study was to determine syphilis seroconversion rates at three months post-transplant in recipients of solid organs procured from donors with reactive syphilis serology. Organ donors and recipients were tested for syphilis antibody; positive results were confirmed with Treponema pallidum Particle Agglutination (TPPA). Eleven donors with reactive syphilis antibody donated organs to 25 syphilis negative recipients. Three recipients seroconverted at post-transplant month 3. All of them had received therapy shortly after transplant. TPPA was negative in all 3. Despite post-transplant treatment, 3 of 25 (12%) syphilis negative recipients of organs from syphilis positive donors seroconverted at 3 months. All remained TPPA negative possibly reflecting passive antibody transfer or differing test sensitivity to low level treponemal antibodies. Further studies are needed to assess optimal syphilis transmission prevention strategies and follow up recipient testing in organ 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".