MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393204717 · doi:10.1002/jmv.29525

Estimated cytomegalovirus seroprevalence in the general population of the United States and Canada

2024· review· en· W4393204717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Dana Flanders, Cathy Lally, Anne Dilley, John Diaz‐Decaro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Virology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersModerna
KeywordsSeroprevalenceDemographyPopulationNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMedicineCytomegalovirusYoung adultGeographyVirologyEnvironmental healthGerontologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral diseaseSerologyImmunologyHerpesviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seroprevalence data for cytomegalovirus (CMV), a widespread virus causing lifelong infection, vary widely, and contemporary data from the United States (US) and Canada are limited. Utilizing a modeling approach based on a literature review (conducted August, 2022) of data published since 2005, we determine age-, sex-, and country-specific CMV seroprevalence in the general US and Canadian populations. Sex-specific data were extracted by age categories, and a random-effects meta-regression model was used to fit the reported data (incorporating splines for the US). Seven studies reported US CMV seroprevalence (both sexes, aged 1‒89 years); all used National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. Due to limited population-based studies, Canadian estimates were modeled using other limited country data. In both countries, modeled seroprevalence estimates increased with age and were higher in females versus males (US: 49.0% vs. 41.6% at 18‒19 years; 61.5% vs. 50.0% at 38‒39 years; Canada: 23.7% vs. 13.7% at 18‒19 years; 32.6% vs. 22.6% at 38‒39 years). Notably, by young adulthood, one-half of US and one-quarter of Canadian females have acquired CMV. The observed differences in CMV seroprevalence in the US and Canada may partially reflect variations in general population characteristics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical VirologySame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207