Will Infant Hepatitis B Vaccination Protect Into Adulthood?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination programs generally target infants to prevent chronic HBV infection and/or preadolescents to reduce transmission in adulthood. To assess whether infant HBV immunization can potentially accomplish both objectives, we measured residual immunity 10-16 years after vaccination in Canadian children. METHODS: A prospective, parallel group, single center study enrolled adolescents given HBV vaccine at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. Exclusion criteria included prior HBV infection and additional vaccinations. At follow-up anti-HBs testing, participants were 10-11 or 15-16 years old; those with <12 mIU/mL anti-HBs by the assay used were challenged with HBV vaccine to assess immune memory-based responsiveness. RESULTS: A total of 137 tested participants were 10-11 and 213 were 15-16 years old, respectively; none had evidence of prior HBV infection. At baseline, 78% of younger and 64% of older participants had <12 mIU/mL anti-HBs (P = 0.006) and were challenged with vaccine: 103/106 (97.2%) younger and 123/135 (91.1%) older participants developed ≥12 mIU/mL anti-HBs (P = 0.06), with geometric mean antibody concentration of 590 (95% confidence interval: 473-737) and 319 mIU/mL (95% confidence interval: 229-445; P = 0.004), respectively. Immune memory loss may have occurred in 3 younger (2.2%) and 12 older children (5.6%; P = 0.06) who were nonresponsive to first but not second vaccine challenge. CONCLUSIONS: After HBV vaccination at 2, 4 and 6 months of age, most adolescents had little or no residual antibody but nearly all responded to HBV challenge, confirming immune memory persistence. However, anamnestic responses were weaker in 15- to 16-year olds and lost in some. Booster responses in 10- to 11-year olds were vigorous in comparison. Extended evaluation of protection is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".