A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Prime‐Boost Strategy for Pneumococcal Vaccination in Adult Liver Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) is recommended for disease prevention in solid-organ transplant recipients, but it may have suboptimal immunogenicity. It may be possible to enhance immunogenicity by priming the recipient with the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7), followed by boosting with PPV23. METHODS: We randomized adult liver transplant recipients to receive either (1) PCV7 followed by a PPV23 booster 8 weeks later (the "primed" group) or (2) placebo followed by a standard single dose of PPV23 (the "unprimed" group). Quantitative and functional antibody titers for 7 serotypes contained in both vaccines were measured at baseline, 8 weeks after enrollment, and 16 weeks after enrollment. Of 130 randomized patients, 113 completed the study. RESULTS: At week 16, response to at least 1 serotype was seen in 48 (85.7%) of 56 and 52 (91.2%) of 57 patients for the primed and unprimed groups, respectively (P=not significant). The mean number of serotypes to have responded (+/-SD) was 307+/-2.3 and 4.4+/-2.2 for the primed and unprimed groups, respectively (P=not significant). Functional antibody titers, which were measured with use of the opsonophagocytic assay, were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination was not enhanced by the prime-boost strategy, compared with vaccination with PPV23 alone. Administration of a single dose of PPV23 should continue to be the standard of care for adult liver transplant recipients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00152802 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".