Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) hospitalization in infants with congenital airway anomalies (CAA) in the canadian registry of palivizumab (CARESS) after prophylaxis (2005-2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: . CARESS tracks palivizumab use and outcomes in high-risk infants. We compared hazards for hospitalization for respiratory illness (RIH) and RSV (RSVH) in CAA infants versus those prophylaxed for other medical disorders (MD) and standard indications (SD). Methods: Infants receiving ≥1 dose of palivizumab in 2005-2012 RSV seasons recruited from 32 Canadian sites. Utilization and hospitalization collected monthly. Results: 13,310 infants enrolled (309 CAA, 1816 MD, 11185 SD). There were statistically significant group differences (p<0.05) in: enrolment and gestational age, birth and enrolment weight, proportions of: Caucasians, daycare attendance, smoking exposure, siblings, multiple birth, household crowding, and atopy.CAA infants had RIH rate of 12.9%; MD (9.9%); SD (5.9%) with significantly increased hazard of hospitalization compared to MD (HR = 1.47, 95%CI 1.04-2.10, p = 0.030) and SD (HR = 1.92, 95%CI 1.39-2.67, p < 0.0005). 40/309 CAA infants were hospitalized for RI, 32 were tested for RSV; 4 were positive (RSVH rate: 1.61% versus 2.06% (MD), 1.47% (SD). ByCox proportional hazard analysis, CAA did not increase hazard of first RSVH compared to MD or SD infants (χ2 = 0.79, df = 2, p = 0.67). After risk factor adjustment for daycare attendance, siblings, smoking exposure and crowding, the model was significant (χ2 = 66.1, df = 10, p < 0.0005); individual groups as risk factors remained insignificant (p = 0.73). Conclusions: This is the largest report of CAA infants receiving palivizumab . Despite differences in risk factors, the groups appear to have similar hazards in terms of RSVH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".