Randomized Controlled Trial of High-Dose Intradermal Versus Standard-Dose Intramuscular Influenza Vaccine in Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immunogenicity of standard intramuscular (IM) influenza vaccine is suboptimal in transplant recipients. Also, recent studies suggest that alloantibody may be upregulated due to vaccination. We evaluated a novel high-dose intradermal (ID) vaccine strategy. In conjunction, we assessed alloimmunity. Transplant recipients were randomized to receive IM or high-dose ID vaccine. Strain-specific serology and HLA alloantibody production was determined pre- and postimmunization. In 212 evaluable patients (105 IM, 107 ID), seroprotection to H1N1, H3N2 and B strains was 70.5%, 63.8% and 52.4% in the IM group, and 71.0%, 70.1%, 63.6% in the ID group (p=ns). Seroconversion to ≥1 antigen was 46.7% and 51.4% in the IM and ID groups respectively (p=0.49). Response was more likely in those≥6 months posttransplant (53.2% vs. 19.2%; p=0.001). Use of mycophenolate mofetil was inversely associated with vaccine response in a dose-dependent manner (p<0.001). Certain organ subgroups had higher response rates for influenza B in the ID vaccine group. Differences in anti-HLA antibody production were detected in only 3/212(1.4%) patients with no clinical consequences. High-dose intradermal vaccine is an alternative to standard vaccine and has potential enhanced immunogenicity in certain subgroups. In this large cohort, we also show that seasonal influenza does not result in significant alloantibody production.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".