MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883601113 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v41i03a03

Immunogenicity and feasibility of intradermal vaccination against rabies in Quebec

2015· article· en· W2883601113 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Yen‐Giang Bui, Sow M, E Cambron-Goulet, Éric Levac, François Milord

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsSanté MontérégieUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineRabiesImmunogenicitySerologyBooster doseImmunizationImmunologyBooster (rocketry)Rabies vaccineSeroconversionAntibodyVirologyRabies virus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Preexposure vaccination against rabies is recommended for some travellers and individuals exposed to the virus through their work. At a cost of at least $150 per intramuscular (IM) dose, few follow this recommendation. In Canada, provided certain conditions are met, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and the Comité d'immunisation du Québec allow a more economical alternative, intradermal vaccine administration (ID) which uses 1/10 the IM dose. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and immunogenicity of intradermal preexposure vaccination. METHODS: Students and employees at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine received three doses of ImovaxRage™ (Sanofi Pasteur) inactivated, human diploid cell rabies vaccine at days 0, 7 and 21 or 28. An IM or ID booster dose was administered after two years when indicated. OUTCOMES: Among the 159 participants who received three doses, 139 underwent serological testing in the year following vaccination and all achieved protective antibody levels. The antibody level was higher when measured within five weeks of the third dose. When the serological control was performed two years later, 65% of participants had a <0.5 IU/ml titre. Of the 22/30 participants who chose an ID booster, 100% responded and the average antibody titres were multiplied by 11, indicating a strong anamnestic response. DISCUSSION: ID rabies vaccination is immunogenic, economic and could be considered for the booster dose. Protective antibodies decline rapidly after primary immunization by ID, so it would seem prudent to perform a serological control one year later on individuals at high risk of occult occupational exposure. An alternative would be to give these individuals a routine ID booster dose one year after primary vaccination, which would simplify initial treatment and reduce related costs (follow-up, blood sampling, serological tests, etc.). The persistence of protective antibodies after this booster dose should be assessed to determine the need for subsequent serological tests and the ideal interval between tests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207