Inadequate knowledge of immunization guidelines: A missed opportunity for preventing infection in immunocompromised IBD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive agents, used commonly to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), are associated with an increased risk of infections, including those preventable by immunization. This study aimed to describe physician and patient values and knowledge regarding immunization and immunization histories. METHODS: In all, 167 IBD patients and 43 gastroenterologists completed mail-out questionnaires. Patients were asked 15 questions about their immunization histories and attitudes towards immunization. Gastroenterologists were asked nine questions about immunization for the immunocompromised host. RESULTS: The questionnaire return rate was 45.7% (43/94) for gastroenterologists and 25.2% (167/661) for patients. Only 14.3% (6/42) of gastroenterologists reported taking an immunization history from most or all of their patients. Only 5.4% (9/167) of patients recalled being asked by their gastroenterologist whether their immunizations were up to date, and just 0.6% (1/164) recalled being asked for a detailed immunization history. Overall, 21.7% (35/161) of patients had refused to be immunized in the past; 18.6% (8/43) of gastroenterologists did not know if up-to-date immunizations were important prior to starting immunosuppressive therapy. Of note, 23.1% (9/39) of gastroenterologists and 46.7% (35/161) of patients did not know whether live vaccines should be avoided by those in the immunosuppressed state, and 42.9% (18/43) of gastroenterologists acknowledged they did not know which specific immunizations should be avoided for immunosuppressed patients. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists have limited knowledge of their IBD patients' immunization status and rarely take an adequate immunization history. Substantial proportions of IBD patients and gastroenterologists lack adequate knowledge of established immunization guidelines prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".