Impact of Adjuvanted H1N1 Vaccine on Cell-Mediated Rejection in Heart Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, vaccination of high risk groups including solid-organ transplant recipients was advised. A retrospective case control study of 60 heart transplant patients, 15 having received the H1N1 virus antigen and ASO3 adjuvant vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline, Mississauga, ON, Canada) within 21 days and 45 having not been vaccinated, all undergoing routine surveillance endmyocardial biopsies, was performed. The overall rate of cellular rejection (all grades) was not statistically different between groups; however, acute cellular rejection, ≥grade 2 (1990 ISHLT criteria), was more frequent among those having recently vaccinated (control: 1/45 vs. 6/15, p = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the only risk factor found to be associated with acute cellular rejection was recent H1N1 viral antigen and adjuvant vaccination (OR 26.5: 95% CI 02.59-270.5). Vaccine adjuvants increase host response to vaccine antigens by immune upregulation potentially increasing risk of rejection in solid-organ transplant recipients. The potential hazard of vaccination this study raises must be weighed with the clear benefit vaccination has proven to be.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".