A comparative study of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis in premature infants within the Canadian Registry of Palivizumab (CARESS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the dosing regimens, compliance, and outcomes of premature infants who received palivizumab within the Canadian Registry of Palivizumab (CARESS). Infants receiving ≥1 dose of palivizumab during the 2006-2011 respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) seasons were recruited across 30 sites. Respiratory illness events were captured monthly. Infants ≤32 completed weeks gestational age (GA) (Group 1) were compared to 33-35 completed weeks GA infants (Group 2) following prophylaxis. In total, 6,654 patients were analyzed (Group 1, n = 5,183; Group 2, n = 1,471). The mean GA was 29.9 ± 2.9 versus 34.2 ± 2.2 weeks for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Group differences were significant (all p-values <0.05) for the following: proportion of males, Caucasians, siblings, multiple births, maternal smoking, smoking during pregnancy, household smokers, >5 household individuals, birth weight, and enrolment age. Overall, infants received 92.6 % of expected injections. Group 1 received significantly more injections, but a greater proportion of Group 2 received injections within recommended intervals. The hospitalization rates were similar for Groups 1 and 2 for respiratory illness (4.7 % vs. 3.7 %, p = 0.1) and RSV (1.5 % vs. 1.4 %, p = 0.3). Neither the time to first respiratory illness [hazard ratio = 0.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.2, p = 0.5] nor to first RSV hospitalization (hazard ratio = 1.3, 95 % CI 0.8-2.2, p = 0.3) were different. Compliance with RSV prophylaxis is high. Despite the higher number of palivizumab doses in infants ≤32 completed weeks GA, the two groups' respiratory illness and RSV-positive hospitalization rates were similar.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".