Response to hepatitis A and B vaccination after pediatric heart transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The determination of optimal immunization protocols for immunocompromised patients is important given limited data, the potential for decreased vaccine response, and the increased threat of infection. This retrospective study assessed the response to HA and/or HB vaccination in a cohort of 13 PHTx recipients. Descriptive statistics were applied to the data, and univariate analysis was utilized to identify possible factors associated with vaccine response. HA vaccination occurred in 12 (92%) patients of whom three (25%) became HA IgG positive post-vaccination. Eight (62%) patients had previously received HB vaccination. HB vaccination occurred in 10 (77%) patients of whom five (50%) were anti-HBS IgG positive post-vaccination. Median age at HA and HB vaccination was 10.0 yr, and median time post-PHTx was 8.2 yr. Looking at the entire patient cohort, a previous history of HB vaccination was associated with increased probability of HB vaccine success (7/8 [88%] vs. 1/5 [20%], p = 0.03). Vaccine response in this cohort of PHTx recipients was well below the rates of healthy children. Only a previous history of HB vaccination was significant for increased likelihood of vaccine response. Further study is needed to identify the optimal approach to vaccination for PHTx recipients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".