P.069 Vaccination protocol for MS patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy: an important topic lacking consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As therapy for MS has expanded to include multiple immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies, the need to consider patient vaccination status has emerged as a salient issue in the treatment of MS. Unfortunately, there is little research or consensus about how vaccination in these patients should be addressed. Methods: A search of primary literature on the topic of potential pathogens and available vaccinations in immunosuppressed patients was performed. We reviewed the limited available information in the MS, gastroenterology, and rheumatology literature. As well, the current Canadian immunization guide was referred to along with expert opinion from public health nurses and infectious disease specialists. Results: There is currently little consensus about vaccination protocols for patients initiating immunosuppressive therapy. We integrated information from all of our sources to create a preliminary protocol for the vaccination of MS patients prior to initiation of immunosuppressive therapy. Conclusions: More work needs to be done to create standardized vaccination protocols for MS patients who will be undergoing immunosuppressive therapy. We have created a preliminary protocol in conjunction with public health to standardize the vaccinations that MS patients receive. We hope that this will streamline immunization of patients immediately after diagnosis of MS so that initiation of immunosuppressive therapy will not be delayed in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".