Unusual Patterns of IgG Avidity in Some Young Children following Two Doses of the Adjuvanted Pandemic H1N1 (2009) Influenza Virus Vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic, an adjuvanted monovalent vaccine containing ∼25% of the normal antigen dose and AS03 adjuvant was widely used in Canada. This vaccine was found to be well-tolerated and immunogenic in young children (D. W. Scheifele et al., Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 30:402-407, 2011). We report here additional analyses to further characterize the humoral response to this vaccine. We measured standard hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) and microneutralization (MN) titers, as well as influenza virus-specific IgG avidity and subclass distribution by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 73 subjects. Sera were collected before (day 0) and 3 weeks after each dose of vaccine (days 21 and 42). Most children (55/73) had undetectable HAI and MN titers at day 0 (presumed to be antigen naive) and mounted good responses at days 21 and 42. The majority of these children (43/55) had the expected pattern of an increasing IgG avidity index (AI) after each dose of vaccine (not detected [ND], 0.30, and 2.97 at days 0, 21, and 42, respectively). The avidity responses in the remaining children (12/55) were quite different, with AIs increasing abruptly after the first dose and then declining after the second dose of vaccine (ND, 8.83, and 7.15, respectively). These children also had higher concentrations of influenza virus-specific IgG1 and IgG3 antibodies at day 21. Although the antibody titers were similar, some antigen-naive children demonstrated an unusual pattern of avidity maturation after two immunizations with AS03-adjuvanted, low-dose influenza virus vaccine. These data suggest the presence of subtle differences in the quality of the antibodies produced by some subjects in response to this vaccine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".