Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prophylaxis in Neurologic and Muscular Disorders in the Canadian Respiratory Syncytial Virus Evaluation Study of Palivizumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the risk of respiratory-related hospitalization in children with neurologic and muscular disorders (NMDs) who received respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis in the Canadian RSV Evaluation Study of Palivizumab. METHODS: Canadian RSV Evaluation Study of Palivizumab is a prospective registry of children who received ≥1 palivizumab injection among 32 Canadian sites. Demographic data were collected at enrollment, and respiratory events were documented monthly. Cox proportional hazard analyses were conducted to compare respiratory illness-related hospitalization (RIH) and RSV-related hospitalization (RSVH) among children with NMD and those prophylaxed for standard indications (SI) and complex medical disorders. RESULTS: Group differences were found in enrollment age and weight, birth weight, household crowding, neonatal stay and supplemental oxygen requirement (all P < 0.05). RIH and RSVH incidences were 19.2%, 3.3% (NMD, n = 605); 6.0%, 1.5% (SI, n = 20,335), 9.4%, 1.6% (complex medical disorders, n = 4063), respectively. Children with NMD had a higher risk of RIH (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.41-2.56; P < 0.0005) than those with SI. RSVH risk was greater in children with NMD compared with both the SI (HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.38-3.72; P = 0.001) and complex medical disorders groups (HR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.55-4.84; P = 0.001). Children with more severe infantile onset NMD had a higher risk of RIH than those with general hypotonic disorders (HR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.06-2.68; P = 0.027) but not RSVH. CONCLUSIONS: Children with NMD who received palivizumab had a higher risk of both RIH and RSVH. Our results imply that all children with NMD, regardless of disease severity, are at risk for respiratory-related illness and RSV infection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".