Reply to Musher
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor—We appreciate Musher's thoughtful comments to our study on antibody concentrations against the infecting serotype in children with invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). In his letter, Musher suggests that the low antibody concentrations against the infecting serotype may be governed by unrecognized genetic factors [1]. We agree that vaccine responses have a genetic component, and this is most likely to be true for pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PPV) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV). However, we do not think that this was a key contributor to the results of our study because the low antibody concentrations found in children vaccinated before and/or after IPD were specific to the infecting pneumococcal serotype [2]. The responses to the remaining serotypes in vaccinated children were not impaired. To our knowledge, there is no evidence for genetic mechanisms explaining serotype-specific responses to conjugate vaccines. In Musher's study on genetic regulation of responses to pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides (PPS) [3], the responder status of offspring was associated with that of their parents, but this association was not serotype-specific. Consequently, the authors concluded that “responsiveness to PPS as a class of antigens seemed to be more clearly related to inheritance than did the response to any individual PPS antigen” [3]. Furthermore, 5 of 7 adults who initially responded poorly to PPV developed “excellent immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses” after immunization with PCV [3, 4], which makes the results difficult to compare to our study involving children with IPD who received PCV only.
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 | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.131 | 0.082 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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".