RSV prevention and treatment in pediatric lung transplant patients: A survey of current practices among the International Pediatric Lung Transplant Collaborative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RSV infection can be severe after pediatric lung transplantation. Strategies to prevent and treat RSV in this population are underreported. To assess the current practices, we surveyed the members of the IPLTC regarding RSV prevention and treatment strategies. Twenty-eight programs were surveyed; 18 (64.3%) responded at least partially. A median of 53 transplants (range, 8-355) occurred since inception. RSV testing occurs in asymptomatic (6/17) and symptomatic (17/17) patients. Diagnostic method is polymerase chain reaction at 13 sites and DFA at 8. Transplant candidates were received prophylaxis at 10 sites, with nine following national (5) or local (4) guidelines. All use palivizumab IM and/or IV. Recipients were received prophylaxis with palivizumab at eight centers (eight IM, one IV). Fourteen were treated for RSV (seven all patients; seven age-related). Medications include inhaled (6), oral (4), or IV (4) ribavirin, plus IVIG (9), steroids (8), and IV (2) or IM (3) palivizumab. Prevention and treatment barriers include insurance/hospital concerns, such as institutional reluctance to use inhaled ribavirin. RSV prevention and treatment strategies are diverse at pediatric lung transplant programs. Many centers offer prophylaxis (9/17) and treatments (14/17), but strategies are not uniform.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it