Frequency of respiratory deterioration after immunisation in preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the relationship between the initiation of respiratory support and the first routine immunisation of neonates at 2 months of age during primary hospitalisation. METHODS: An historical cohort study design was used to study the neonatal factors associated with the initiation of respiratory support within 7 days of immunisation in a cohort of 7629 preterm and term infants admitted to the Neonatal Unit of the Royal Women's Hospital between 2001 and 2008. RESULTS: The 411 infants who received their first immunisations in hospital were both very preterm and of extremely low birth weight (ELBW, below 1000 g). Twenty-two infants experienced post-immunisation apnoea of sufficient severity to warrant the initiation of either intermittent positive pressure ventilation (two cases) or continuous positive airway pressure (20 cases). Infants exhibiting a respiratory deterioration following immunisation had a higher incidence of previous septicaemia (Odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.0, 6.1; P = 0.04) and received CPAP for a longer period prior to vaccination (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Apnoea following immunisation may be an aetiological factor in the requirement of respiratory support in a small number of preterm, ELBW infants particularly those with significant lung disease and those who have previously experienced septicaemia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".