Long Term Immune Responses to Pandemic Influenza A/H1N1 Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients it is unknown if natural infection with influenza confers protection from re-infection with the same strain during the next influenza season. The purpose of this study was to determine if infection with pandemic influenza A/H1N1 (pH1N1) resulted in a long-term immunologic response. Transplant recipients with microbiologically proven pH1N1 infection in 2009/2010 underwent humoral and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) testing for pH1N1 just prior to the next influenza season. Concurrent testing for A/Brisbane/59/2007 was done to rule-out cross-reacting antibody. We enrolled 22 adult transplant patients after pH1N1 infection. Follow up testing was done at a median of 7.4 months (range 5.8-15.4) after infection. After excluding those with cross-reactive antibody, 7/19 (36.8%) patients were seroprotected. Detectable pH1N1-specific CD4+ and CD8+ interferon-γ producing T-cells were found in 11/22 (50%) and 8/22 (36.4%) patients respectively. Humoral immunity had a significant correlation with a CD4 response. This is the first study in transplant patients to evaluate long-term humoral and cellular response after natural influenza infection. We show that a substantial proportion of SOT recipients with previous pH1N1 infection lack long-term humoral and cellular immune responses to pH1N1. These patients most likely are at risk for re-infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".