Immune response of intradermal hepatitis B vaccination at lower dose versus intramuscular vaccination at double standard dose in predialytic chronic renal failure patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immune responses to hepatitis B vaccine were studied in 2 groups of predialytic chronic renal failure patients who had negative results of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) and hepatitis B core antibody (anti HBc). In the intradermal group, vaccine at the dose of 0.1 ml, 2 microg, was intradermally administered at 5 positions. In the intramuscular group, the vaccine at the dose of 1.0 ml, 20 microg, was intramuscularly given at 2 positions and, thus, was a double standard dose. Both groups received 4 vaccinations at month 0, 1, 2, and 6 (M0, M1, M2, and M6). The results showed that there were no significant differences in the results of seroconversion rates, defined as having anti HBs levels above 10 mIU/ml, between the intradermal (ID) and intramuscular (IM) groups at M1, M2, M6, and M7. In patients with positive seroconversion results at M7, the numbers of patients in the good and excellent subgroups, having HBs Ab levels ranged 10-999 and above 1,000 mIU/ml respectively, showed no difference between both routes. The body weight and seroconversion rates at M2 and M6 were the factors which had a positive influence on the seroconversion rates of intradermal hepatitis B vaccination. In conclusion, intradermal hepatitis B vaccination at a lower dose could provide comparable satisfactory immune response with the intramuscular route at double the standard dose.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".