Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the latest evidence for the use of key vaccines that are recommended in organ transplant candidates and recipients. RECENT FINDINGS: Influenza vaccine is the best studied vaccine; factors affecting immunogenicity of this vaccine include time from transplant, use of mycophenolate mofetil and type of transplant. Newer formulations of influenza vaccine are available, but data for these are limited. Updated recommendations include giving conjugated pneumococcal vaccine to adult transplant candidates and recipients followed by the polysaccharide vaccine to increase serotype coverage. Human papillomavirus vaccine should also be given to transplant recipients, although the immunogenicity may be suboptimal. Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine needs to be given in special circumstances such as to patients who are starting eculizumab therapy. Live vaccines in general are contraindicated, although increasing safety data are emerging for Varicella vaccine. Herpes Zoster vaccine may be offered prior to transplant, although the utility of this strategy regarding protection from shingles after transplant is not known. Newer vaccines such as inactivated zoster vaccine and vaccines for the prevention of cytomegalovirus are under study. SUMMARY: Immunization for organ transplant recipients is an important part of pretransplant evaluation and the long-term care of the transplant recipient.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".