Safety and efficacy of a reduced frequency post-transplant monitoring strategy for EBV, CMV, and BKV.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus on optimal viral monitoring protocol for kidney transplant recipients. In response to the increased demand on laboratory testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Transplant Manitoba Adult Kidney Program (TMAKP) adopted reduced frequency monitoring protocols for cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein Barr virus (EBV), and BK polyomavirus (BKV). METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational cohort study evaluated 341 adult kidney transplant recipients transplanted between January 2015 to March 2021, with the change in protocol effective on March 19th 2020. Recipients transplanted prior to March 19, 2019 comprised the pre-protocol cohort, while those transplanted after March 19, 2020 were contained in the post-protocol cohort. For each viremia, an incident cohort consisting of recipients transplanted post-protocol change who developed viremia were matched to historical controls from the pre-protocol era. The prevalent cohort consisted of recipients transplanted in the pre-protocol period with established viremia prior to the protocol change. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in maximum viral load between incident cases and controls in titers of EBV, CMV, or BKV. Among recipients with established viremia pre-protocol change, and who had at least one viral load checked post-protocol change, median viral load was significantly lower post-protocol in the CMV (860 vs 0 copies/mL, p<0.0001) and BKV (26500 vs 500 copies/mL, p<0.0001) prevalent cohorts, but not the EBV cohort. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reduced frequency monitoring may be safe and cost-effective. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to better evaluate long term outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".