MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pneumococcal vaccine administration associated with splenectomy: The need for improved education, documentation, and the use of a practical checklist

2000· article· en· W2029918987 on OpenAlexaffabout
Malcolm L. Brigden, A Pattullo, Gail J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hematology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal Trauma and Injuries
Canadian institutionsKelowna General HospitalCanadian Blood ServicesBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSplenectomyMedicineChecklistVaccinationPneumococcal vaccinationDocumentationAuditPneumococcal vaccinePediatricsGeneral surgerySurgeryInternal medicineImmunologyStreptococcus pneumoniaeSpleen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An audit was performed of the documentation of pneumococcal vaccination in splenectomy patients in three major hospitals involving a geographical population base of 350,000 patients in British Columbia, Canada. Overall, 111 of the 164 hospitalized splenectomy patients (68%) had received pneumococcal vaccination. Of elective splenectomy cases, only 11 of 55 (20%) had been vaccinated prior to surgery, as is currently recommended. One hundred fifty-five patients (95%) had splenectomy status mentioned in the discharge summary. However, only 35 (21%) had mention of vaccination status, 10 (6%) mention of the need for future revaccination, and only 8 (5%) notation of the possibility of future infectious risks. The rate of pneumococcal vaccination was as satisfactory as any reported in the literature to date. However, there is need for improved education in relation to the timing of vaccination and discharge summary documentation. A checklist for potential splenectomy patients may aid in improving this situation as may geographically based splenectomy registries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HematologySame topicAbdominal Trauma and InjuriesFrench-language works237,207