Immunization practices in acute lymphocytic leukemia and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant in Canadian Pediatric Hematology/Oncology centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are no Canadian immunization guidelines for children treated for malignancy. Guidelines do exist for patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), but they provide broad timeframes for initiating vaccination; there is no standard schedule. The optimal approach to immunization in these populations is unclear. We sought to describe immunization practices at Canadian Pediatric Hematology/Oncology centers. A 43-item online questionnaire was distributed to the 16 programs in the C(17) research network of pediatric hematology/oncology centers to capture information on timing and criteria for immunization of patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and those who have undergone HSCT. At each center, 1-2 physicians or pharmacists completed the survey to reflect center-wide immunization practices. Responses were received from 11/16 (69%) programs; 11 respondents reported on practices for patients with ALL and 9 reported on practices for patients who are post-HSCT. In 5/11 ALL programs (45%) re-immunization is recommended routinely after chemotherapy, starting 3-6 months post-chemotherapy. In HSCT programs, timing of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV) varied from 3 months post-HSCT (4 programs) to 12 months post-HSCT (4 programs). Live vaccines were administered 24 months post-HSCT in 8/9 programs. All HSCT programs considered graft-versus-host-disease and 7 considered discontinuation of immunosuppression in immunization decisions. Pediatric hematology/oncology programs were divided in regards to re-immunization of patients with ALL post-chemotherapy. After HSCT, timing of PCV administration varied, with 4 programs initiating immunization later than Canadian guidelines recommend (3-9 months post-HSCT). These findings suggest a need to standardize immunization practices in these populations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".