MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138979898 · doi:10.1177/0956462412472450

Immunization against pneumococcal disease in HIV-infected patients: conjugate versus polysaccharide vaccine before or after reconstitution of the immune system (CTN-147)

2013· article· en· W2138979898 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn Slayter, Joel Singer, T C K Lee, Helena Käyhty, Walter F. Schlech

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineImmunizationPneumococcal conjugate vaccineImmune systemImmunologyPneumococcal polysaccharide vaccineSerotypeConjugate vaccineVaccinationVirologyStreptococcus pneumoniaePneumococcal diseaseAntibioticsBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate whether patients should be immunized immediately or delay immunization until after reconstitution of the immune system and whether a conjugate or polysaccharide vaccine results in a better immunologic response. Seventy-nine patients were randomly assigned, utilizing a two by two factorial design to receive immediate immunization or delay immunization. Baseline characteristics were similar for the four arms: 78% men, median age 41 years, median time since HIV diagnosis 0.3 years, median CD4 60 cells/mm(3) and median HIV viral load 5.02 log copies/mL. Results in favour of delayed immunization were observed for those serotypes showing a response. The proportional odds ratios for delayed versus immediate immunization were 0.341 (P = 0.04) and 0.204 (P = 0.004) at months 6 and 12, respectively. No differences in immunological response were observed between the two individual vaccines for the shared serotypes studied. HIV-infected adults produced a higher immunological response to pneumococcal vaccine after reconstitution of the immune system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207