MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218321525 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1074358

Immunization of preterm infants

2015· review· en· W2218321525 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Gagneur, Didier Pinquier, Caroline Quach

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunizationVaccinationTolerabilityImmune systemPediatricsPopulationImmunologyGestational ageHepatitis B vaccineAdverse effectPregnancyInternal medicineHepatitis B virusEnvironmental healthVirusHBsAg

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaccinations of premature infants are often delayed despite being at an increased risk of contracting vaccine preventable diseases. This article reviews the current knowledge on the immune response to widely used vaccines, on the protection derived from routine immunization and on vaccine safety and tolerability in a population of preterm infants. Available data evaluating the immune response of preterm infants support early immunization without correction for gestational age. For a number of antigens, the antibody response to initial doses of vaccines may be lower than that of term infants, but protective concentrations are often achieved and memory successfully induced. Vaccines are immunogenic, safe and well tolerated in preterm infants. Preterm infants should be vaccinated using the same schedules as those usually recommended for full-term infants, with the exception of the hepatitis B vaccine, where additional doses should be administered in infants receiving the first dose during the first days of life if they weighed less than 2000 g because of a documented reduced 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations86
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207