Influenza Revaccination of Elderly Travelers: Antibody Response to Single Influenza Vaccination and Revaccination at 12 Weeks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antibody response to a single influenza vaccination and the effect of influenza revaccination was assessed in healthy elderly persons. Travelers > or =65 years old who had received influenza vaccine before travel were enrolled in the study and were offered a second vaccination after 12 weeks. Geographic and age-matched control subjects received a single vaccination. A second influenza vaccination was not associated with increased adverse effects. There was no significant difference between log(10) hemagglutinin-inhibiting (HI) antibody titers or an HI antibody titer > or =1:40 (considered to be protective) in 28 control subjects and 28 revaccinated travelers for any antigen. Probable protection for influenza A antigens remained high 24 weeks after a single immunization and revaccination (A/Sydney/05/97 [H3N2], 92% and 96%, and A/Beijing/262/95 [H1N1], 80% and 96%, respectively). Response to B/Harbin was less throughout the study. A/Sydney antibody titer was lower with more times vaccinated in the previous 5 years. Therefore, a second vaccine did not enhance the immune response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".