Is a Higher Amniotic Fluid Viral Load Associated with a Greater Risk of Fetal Injury in Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have aimed to predict prenatal and neonatal outcomes for pregnancies complicated by congenital cytomegalovirus (CMV). Presently, assessing CMV severity prenatally relies largely on fetal imaging. A controversy exists regarding CMV viral load (VL) and its association with fetal and neonatal sequelae. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the association between CMV DNA VL in amniotic fluid and fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with congenital CMV. Results: All cohort, case-control and observational studies that compared outcomes of fetuses with congenital CMV and provided information on individual patient CMV VL quantified in copies per milliliter (c/mL) from inception to January 2023 were included, with no geographical or language restrictions. A total of 1251 citations were reviewed with eight studies meeting inclusion criteria and included in meta-analysis. Affected pregnancies had a higher VL in the amniotic fluid compared to those unaffected with a mean difference of 2.2e+7 (range 1.5e+7 to 2.8e+7). In subgroup analysis, the VL was significantly higher in the fetuses, with imaging findings related to CMV compared to asymptomatic fetuses with a mean difference of 4.1e+7 (95% CI 2.8e+7–5.4e+7). However, among babies with congenital CMV, the VL was not significantly different between symptomatic and asymptomatic babies. Conclusions: Amniotic fluid CMV VL is associated with fetal sequalae in congenital CMV, with a higher VL conferring a greater risk for prenatal injury.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".