Hepatitis A and B immunization for individuals with inherited bleeding disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatitis A and B vaccines are highly effective tools that can greatly reduce infection risk in the bleeding disorder population. Although hepatitis A and B immunization for individuals with bleeding disorders is universally recommended, various advisory bodies often differ with respect to many practical aspects of vaccination. To review the published literature and guidelines and form a practical, comprehensive and consistent approach to hepatitis A and B immunization for individuals with bleeding disorders. We reviewed published immunization guidelines from North American immunization advisory bodies and published statements from North American and international haemophilia advisory bodies. A search of the MEDLINE database was performed to find original published literature pertaining to hepatitis A or B immunization of patients with haemophilia or bleeding disorder patients that provided supporting or refuting evidence for advisory body guidelines. Various advisory bodies' immunization guidelines regarding individuals with bleeding disorders have contradictory statements and often did not clarify issues (e.g. post vaccination surveillance). Published literature addressing immunization in bleeding disorder patients is sparse and mostly examines route of vaccine administration, complications and corresponding antibody response. Although the risk of hepatitis A and B infection is low, the use of simple measures such as vaccination is reasonable and advocated by haemophilia advisory bodies. Following our review of the available literature and North American guidelines, we have developed comprehensive and practical recommendations addressing hepatitis A and B immunization for the bleeding disorder population that may be applicable in Bleeding Disorder clinics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".