CARESS: The Canadian Registry of Palivizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palivizumab is indicated for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis in high-risk children. However, relatively little is known about the current use, compliance, and outcomes associated with this medication. METHODS: A prospective, observational, registry based on 27 sites, with monthly follow-up of infants at high risk for RSV who received at least 1 dose of palivizumab during the 2005-2009 RSV seasons. RESULTS: A total of 5286 children were enrolled (56.6% male; 71.7% white; average gestational age, 32.1 ± 5.5 weeks). Of them, 3741 patients (70.8%) were prophylaxed for prematurity only, 449 (8.5%) for bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease, 508 (9.6%) for congenital heart disease, and 588 (11.1%) for other reasons. Overall, 19,485 doses were given. On average, infants received 86.0% ± 28.4% of their expected number of injections; 71.2% of infants received their injections in the recommended time periods. Of the 5286 participants enrolled, 308 patients were hospitalized for respiratory tract illness (hospitalization rate, 5.8%). The RSV-hospitalization rate was calculated as 1.38%. Having siblings increased likelihood of hospitalization (66.9% vs. 55.7%, P < 0.005), and was significantly correlated with time to hospitalization in this cohort (P = 0.050). CONCLUSIONS: The overall RSV-hospitalization rate in our study was within the range found in previous reports (1.3%-5.3%), although it did not mimic the declining rates of the US Palivizumab Outcomes Registry. This could be due to increased testing for RSV when hospitalized and increasing rates of prophylaxis of infants with underlying medical disorders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".