Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Dr. Lashner and Dr. Cominelli, Please find below a response to the letter by Dr. Freddy Calder: Thank you for your interest in our study. We acknowledge the concerns of the limitations of commercially performed assays for measurement of vaccine-induced immunity. As included in our discussion, we agree that a limitation of our study is the use of antibody titers as these are a surrogate outcome only and may not correlate with protection from disease; we also concur that vaccine-induced immunity may differ from immunity occurring from natural infection, such as with varicella, and acknowledge the limitation of lack of healthy controls to evaluate whether waning antibody titers differs in IBD patients compared with health controls. For varicella, in Alberta, one-dose varicella vaccine was added to the vaccination schedule in 2001, and two-dose was added in 2012. Therefore, as our study was conducted from 2011 to 2012, the majority of children (55 of 60) did not yet receive a second varicella vaccine dose. Notwithstanding, we utilized commercially performed assays to evaluate the spectrum of seroprotection in patients with IBD in a research setting. Our results highlight the challenge of understanding the best approach to evaluating protection against vaccine-preventable illnesses in patients with IBD—by review of vaccine record history, by measurement of antibody titer, or by other means. Future research is required to determine the most appropriate method of assessing protection against vaccine-preventable illnesses in patients with IBD. Future research is also required to better understand the impact of IBD and immunosuppressive medications on humoral and cell-mediated immunity following vaccinations. Lastly, future research is required to develop and evaluate vaccination protocols for patients with IBD who are immunosuppressed due to medication use. Vaccine-preventable illnesses remain a significant concern for patients with IBD, especially in the current era of common immunosuppressive medication use, vaccine refusal/hesitancy, global outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses, frequent worldwide travel, and the natural history of waxing immunity to vaccines over time. Sincerely,
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
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".