Seasonal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prophylaxis Based on Predetermined Dates Versus Regional Surveillance Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Ontario, Canada, the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis period onset is defined by a fixed-date set provincially each year and offset by local hospital RSV admission activity. Inaccurate timing can result in inadequate or more costly prophylaxis. METHODS: RSV positivity (2002/03 to 2010/11) was obtained from a local database. RSV activity was described: season start/end dates, duration and optimum number of palivizumab doses required compared with doses administered for the final 4 RSV seasons (2007 to 2011). Three prophylaxis period-setting methods were evaluated for seasons 2007/08 to 2010/11: 1) the provincial method currently in use, 2) a local fixed-date method based on laboratory data accrued from the previous 5 seasons and 3) an exploratory prospective method based on surveillance of laboratory data. These were compared with the observed RSV seasons. RESULTS: The local RSV pattern closely reflects provincial seasonality. The local median season duration was 125 days (range 90-181). Median season onset and offset dates were December 19 and April 16, respectively. The prophylactic period definitions corresponded similarly, but the provincially set and local fixed-date methods provided longer immunity periods than required for the actual RSV season and involved the administration of more than 5 palivizumab doses compared with the prospective method. CONCLUSIONS: The provincial prophylactic period aligned with the local fixed-date and prospective methods. However, the adoption of any of the first 2 strategies merits close observation to minimize excess healthcare expenditure. The prospective surveillance of laboratory isolates should be further explored as a preferred option to better define prophylactic periods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".