Immune response to conjugated meningococcal C vaccine in pediatric oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following outbreaks of meningococcal disease in Quebec in 1991-1993 and 2000-2001, a mass vaccination campaign was performed. In 2001-2002, children aged 2 months to 20 years were immunized with the Meningococcal CRM197 vaccine (Menjugate). We examined the response of pediatric oncology patients during or following maintenance chemotherapy and post-bone-marrow transplantation to Meningococcal C vaccine. PROCEDURE: This was an open label descriptive study of a cohort of patients from the oncology clinic at the Montreal Children's Hospital. A positive vaccine response was defined as a fourfold increase in specific IgG from baseline and a bactericidal assay using human complement (hBCA) titer >1:4. RESULTS: Of the 25 patients with ALL, 13 had a serologic response (average 60-fold increase). The serologic responders had a higher mean B cell count (0.262) compared to non-responders 0.068 x 10.9/L [t(23) = 2.843 (P < 0.05)]. Eleven of the 12 non-responders and 4 of the responders were on maintenance chemotherapy. In addition, two of the five patients post-bone-marrow transplant, responded. Fifteen of the 34 patients (44%) had an adequate hBCA response (mean titer 61). The group included 14/18 serologic responders with hBCA response (P < 0.001) and 16/17 non-serologic responders with no hBCA response (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Meningococcal C-conjugate vaccine produced variable responses in children with common cancers. Proximity to chemotherapy and total B cell number may help predict likelihood of response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".