Prospective audit of adverse reactions occurring in 459 primary antibody-deficient patients receiving intravenous immunoglobulin
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
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is used as the standard replacement therapy for patients with primary antibody deficiencies. A previous study of adverse reactions in patients self-infusing at home over 1 year showed an overall reaction rate of 0.7%. A larger prospective study is reported here, involving a greater number of immunology centres and including children and adults who received infusions from medical or nursing staff as well as those self-infusing. Four hundred and fifty-nine patients were entered into this study and 13 508 infusions were given. The study showed that no severe reactions occurred and the reaction rate was low at 0.8%. This figure could have been lower, 0.5%, if predisposing factors responsible for some reactions had been considered before infusion. In conclusion, the study shows the importance of ongoing training for patients and staff to recognize the predisposing factors to prevent avoidable reactions. Because none of these reactions were graded as severe, the present guidance to prescribe self-injectable adrenaline for patients infusing outside hospital should be reviewed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it