Variability in immunization guidelines in children before and after lung transplantation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung transplant candidates and recipients are at high risk of infections from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, well-established guidelines neither exist for pre- and post-transplant vaccination nor do monitoring guidelines for pediatric lung transplant recipients. To ascertain the current vaccination and monitoring practices of pediatric lung transplant centers, a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to the 18 pediatric lung transplant centers within the International Pediatric Lung Transplant Collaborative in April 2006. Sixteen of 18 centers (89%) surveyed responded. Pretransplant, national vaccination guidelines are followed. Eleven centers reported following standardized vaccination guidelines post-transplant. Vaccines were more commonly provided by the primary-care physician pretransplant (69%) rather than post-transplant (38%). Post-transplant, 50% of the centers recommend live vaccines for household contacts but not for the transplant recipient. Pretransplant monitoring of response to prior vaccination was performed inconsistently except for varicella (88%). Only 44% of the transplant centers measure for response to vaccination post-transplant, mostly hepatitis B. Current vaccination practices of pediatric lung transplant centers are heterogeneous. The lung transplant community would be well served by studies designed to evaluate the efficacy of vaccinations in this population.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it