MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response to hepatitis A and B vaccination after pediatric heart transplant

2012· article· en· W1565129810 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Martin, Alison Drabble, Cedric Manlhiot, Anne I. Dipchand

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCohortImmunizationRetrospective cohort studyImmunologyUnivariate analysisPediatricsInternal medicineMultivariate analysisImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207