MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380079420 · doi:10.1111/petr.14471

The IPTA Nashville Consensus Conference on Post‐Transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after solid organ transplantation in children: III – Consensus guidelines for Epstein‐Barr virus load and other biomarker monitoring

2023· review· en· W4380079420 on OpenAlexafffund
Jutta K. Preiksaitis, Upton Allen, Catherine M. Bollard, Vikas R. Dharnidharka, Daniel E. Dulek, Michael Green, Olivia M. Martinez, Diana Metes, Marian G. Michaels, Françoise Smets, Richard Chinnock, Patrizia Comoli, Lara Danziger‐Isakov, Anne I. Dipchand, Carlos O. Esquivel, Judith A. Ferry, Thomas G. Gross, Robert J. Hayashi, Britta Höcker, Arnaud G. L’Huillier, Stephen D. Marks, George Mazariegos, James E. Squires, Steven H. Swerdlow, Ralf Ulrich Trappe, Gary Visner, Steven A. Webber, James D. Wilkinson, Brtitta Maecker‐Kolhoff

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenChildren's Hospital of PittsburghWashington University in St. Louis
KeywordsMedicineLymphoproliferative disordersViral loadViremiaPsychological interventionTransplantationBiomarkerIntensive care medicineContext (archaeology)ImmunologyEpstein–Barr virusOrgan transplantationInternal medicineLymphomaHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirusPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Pediatric Transplant Association convened an expert consensus conference to assess current evidence and develop recommendations for various aspects of care relating to post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders after solid organ transplantation in children. In this report from the Viral Load and Biomarker Monitoring Working Group, we reviewed the existing literature regarding the role of Epstein-Barr viral load and other biomarkers in peripheral blood for predicting the development of PTLD, for PTLD diagnosis, and for monitoring of response to treatment. Key recommendations from the group highlighted the strong recommendation for use of the term EBV DNAemia instead of "viremia" to describe EBV DNA levels in peripheral blood as well as concerns with comparison of EBV DNAemia measurement results performed at different institutions even when tests are calibrated using the WHO international standard. The working group concluded that either whole blood or plasma could be used as matrices for EBV DNA measurement; optimal specimen type may be clinical context dependent. Whole blood testing has some advantages for surveillance to inform pre-emptive interventions while plasma testing may be preferred in the setting of clinical symptoms and treatment monitoring. However, EBV DNAemia testing alone was not recommended for PTLD diagnosis. Quantitative EBV DNAemia surveillance to identify patients at risk for PTLD and to inform pre-emptive interventions in patients who are EBV seronegative pre-transplant was recommended. In contrast, with the exception of intestinal transplant recipients or those with recent primary EBV infection prior to SOT, surveillance was not recommended in pediatric SOT recipients EBV seropositive pre-transplant. Implications of viral load kinetic parameters including peak load and viral set point on pre-emptive PTLD prevention monitoring algorithms were discussed. Use of additional markers, including measurements of EBV specific cell mediated immunity was discussed but not recommended though the importance of obtaining additional data from prospective multicenter studies was highlighted as a key research priority.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0100.007
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207