MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605597317 · doi:10.1097/aco.0000000000000462

The implications of immunization in the daily practice of pediatric anesthesia

2017· review· en· W2605597317 on OpenAlexaff
Gianluca Bertolizio, Marinella Astuto, Pablo Ingelmo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunizationVaccinationIntensive care medicineVaccination scheduleAttenuated vaccineImmune systemAnesthesiaPediatricsImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Vaccination is an important prevention measure, but requires an intact immune system. Surgery and anesthesia suppress the immune system and may interfere with the benefits of immunization. Moreover, common vaccine side-effects may be misinterpreted as postsurgical complications. This review summarizes the essential basis of immunization and its potential interactions with anesthesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Vaccines have mild side-effects, such as fever, but may lead to serious complications in immunocompromised patients. Surgery and anesthesia may decrease the efficacy of a vaccine, or promote vaccine-related complications. It, therefore, reasonable to schedule surgery and anesthesia with a delay either before or after vaccine administration, but there is no consensus among anesthesiologists and pediatricians regarding this timing. SUMMARY: Inactive vaccines are generally well tolerated. Live vaccines provide an effective and long-lasting immunization, but may carry more serious complications. Elective operations should be postponed 1 week after an inactive vaccine and 3 weeks after immunization with a live vaccine. To avoid misinterpretation of vaccine-related side-effects, vaccination should be also delayed after surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207