Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prophylaxis in Infants With Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia in the Canadian Respiratory Syncytial Virus Evaluation Study of Palivizumab, 2005–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) are at an increased risk of respiratory morbidity from recurrent respiratory tract infections including those from respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Prospective studies on RSV prophylaxis in CDH infants are limited. We determined the risk of respiratory illness- and RSV-related hospitalizations (RIH and RSVH, respectively) among infants prophylaxed for CDH, standard indications (SIs) and those without increased risk (NR). METHODS: The prospective Canadian Respiratory Syncytial Virus Evaluation Study of Palivizumab (CARESS) registry was searched for infants who received palivizumab during 12 RSV seasons (2005-2017) in Canada. Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted to compare RIH and RSVH risks across the groups adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: In total, 21 107 infants (201 CDH, 389 NR, and 20 517 SI) were included. RIH incidences were 10.0% (CDH), 2.1% (NR), and 6.2% (SI). CDH patients had a significantly higher RIH hazard compared with NR (hazard ratio [HR], 3.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.5-8.8]; P = .005) but not SI (HR, 1.2 [95% CI, .8-2.0]; P = .379). RSVH incidences were 0.6%, 0.3%, and 1.5% for CDH, NR, and SI, respectively. RSVH risk was similar across groups (SI: HR, 0.0, P = .922; NR: HR, 0.0, P = .934). CONCLUSIONS: CDH infants had a 3-fold increased risk of RIH compared to NR but not SI infants. RSVH risk was similar with low RSVH incidences across all groups, implying that CDH infants may benefit from palivizumab during the RSV season, similar to other high-risk groups. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00420966.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".