An Audit of Influenza Vaccination Status in Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several guidelines recommend influenza vaccination for high-risk patients, including those on immune-suppressing medications (IS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the vaccination status and immunization history of an outpatient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population for H1N1 and seasonal influenza. RESULTS: Among 250 patients, 104 (41.6%) had been immunized against H1N1 and 62 (24.8%) against seasonal influenza, and 158 (63.2%) were taking IS (azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, infliximab, adalimumab, methotrexate, cyclosporine or prednisone). Among subjects on IS, the presence of comorbidities warranting vaccination was associated with higher likelihood of H1N1 immunization (62.5% versus 35.8%; P=0.022) but not of seasonal influenza vaccination (25.0% versus 17.2%; P=0.392). Among patients without comorbidities warranting vaccination, IS was associated with a decreased likelihood of vaccination against seasonal influenza (17.2% versus 30.7%; P=0.036) but not H1N1 (35.8% versus 41.3%; P=0.46). The frequency of H1N1 vaccination was significantly higher among patients who visited a general practitioner at least once yearly (45.7% versus 20%; P=0.0027), with a similar trend for seasonal influenza vaccination (27.1% versus 12.5%; P=0.073). Among 91 patients on IS who declined vaccination, 39.6% reported fear of immediate side effects, 29.7% reported concerns about developing serious medical complications, 15.4% reported concerns about activating IBD and 15.4% were not aware that vaccination was indicated. CONCLUSIONS: Current strategies for vaccinating IBD patients on IS are inadequate. Primary care provider education, incentive programs and regular primary care contact may improve immunization uptake.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".