MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115744674 · doi:10.1086/374784

Randomized, Double‐Blind, Controlled Trial of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Renal Transplant Recipients

2003· article· en· W2115744674 on OpenAlexaff
Deepali Kumar, Coleman Rotstein, Genevieve Miyata, Dianne Arlen, Atul Humar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunogenicityMedicineImmunosuppressionVaccinationPneumococcal conjugate vaccineSerotypeImmunologyAntibody titerTransplantationStreptococcus pneumoniaeTiterAntibodyInternal medicineBiologyMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal transplant recipients are at increased risk for developing invasive pneumococcal disease but may have a poor response to pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23). For them, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) may be more immunogenic. Patients were given a single dose of PPV23 or PCV7 in our randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. Immunogenicity was assessed 8 weeks after vaccination by serotype-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and opsonophagocytic assay (OPA). Baseline demographics, renal function, time since transplantation, and immunosuppression were comparable. In the PCV7 group, the vaccine response rate was improved for serotypes 23F (P=.046) and 6B (P=.067), and mean fold increases in antibody titer were higher for serotypes 23F (P=.046) and 9V (P=.09). The response rate and mean fold increase in OPA titers were not significantly different between groups. There was a trend toward enhanced immunogenicity for PCV7 by ELISA. However, functional antibody responses were not different.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations129
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207