MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920725640 · doi:10.2196/12907

Aims, Study Design, and Enrollment Results From the Assessing Predictors of Infant Respiratory Syncytial Virus Effects and Severity Study

2019· article· en· W2920725640 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward E. Walsh, Thomas J. Mariani, Chin‐Yi Chu, Alex Grier, Steven R. Gill, Xing Qiu, Lu Wang, Jeanne Holden‐Wiltse, Anthony Corbett, Juilee Thakar, Lauren Benoodt, Matthew N. McCall, David J. Topham, Ann R. Falsey, Mary T. Caserta

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineCohortImmunologyBuccal swabCohort studyInternal medicinePediatricsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The majority of infants hospitalized with primary respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection have no obvious risk factors for severe disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study (Assessing Predictors of Infant RSV Effects and Severity, AsPIRES) was to identify factors associated with severe disease in full-term healthy infants younger than 10 months with primary RSV infection. METHODS: RSV infected infants were enrolled from 3 cohorts during consecutive winters from August 2012 to April 2016 in Rochester, New York. A birth cohort was prospectively enrolled and followed through their first winter for development of RSV infection. An outpatient supplemental cohort was enrolled in the emergency department or pediatric offices, and a hospital cohort was enrolled on admission with RSV infection. RSV was diagnosed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Demographic and clinical data were recorded and samples collected for assays: buccal swab (cytomegalovirus polymerase chain reaction, PCR), nasal swab (RSV qualitative PCR, complete viral gene sequence, 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid [RNA] amplicon microbiota analysis), nasal wash (chemokine and cytokine assays), nasal brush (nasal respiratory epithelial cell gene expression using RNA sequencing [RNAseq]), and 2 to 3 ml of heparinized blood (flow cytometry, RNAseq analysis of purified cluster of differentiation [CD]4+, CD8+, B cells and natural killer cells, and RSV-specific antibody). Cord blood (RSV-specific antibody) was also collected for the birth cohort. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression will be used for analysis of data using a continuous Global Respiratory Severity Score (GRSS) as the outcome variable. Novel statistical methods will be developed for integration of the large complex datasets. RESULTS: A total of 453 infants were enrolled into the 3 cohorts; 226 in the birth cohort, 60 in the supplemental cohort, and 78 in the hospital cohort. A total of 126 birth cohort infants remained in the study and were evaluated for 150 respiratory illnesses. Of the 60 RSV positive infants in the supplemental cohort, 42 completed the study, whereas all 78 of the RSV positive hospital cohort infants completed the study. A GRSS was calculated for each RSV-infected infant and is being used to analyze each of the complex datasets by correlation with disease severity in univariate and multivariate methods. CONCLUSIONS: The AsPIRES study will provide insights into the complex pathogenesis of RSV infection in healthy full-term infants with primary RSV infection. The analysis will allow assessment of multiple factors potentially influencing the severity of RSV infection including the level of RSV specific antibodies, the innate immune response of nasal epithelial cells, the adaptive response by various lymphocyte subsets, the resident airway microbiota, and viral factors. Results of this study will inform disease interventions such as vaccines and antiviral therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207