Reevaluating immunization delays after red blood cell transfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current American and Canadian guidelines recommend delaying live vaccine immunization by 5 to 6 months after transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) due to potential interference by serum antibodies. Due to lack of data, the recommendations may be unfounded and prevent valuable vaccination opportunities for children with frequent blood transfusions. The primary aim of this study was to determine measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine immunogenicity in patients chronically transfused with RBCs. A secondary aim was to quantify vaccine antibodies in RBC donations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: MMR-specific antibodies were quantified in 25 pediatric patients who received both doses of MMR vaccine while on a chronic RBC transfusion program (median, 6.6 years after vaccination). MMR antibodies were also quantified in 30 samples of supernatants from RBC donations. RESULTS: Immunity to each of the MMR components was 68% to 76%. In blood donors born before 1976 (pre-MMR vaccine), 67% of MMR serologies in the supernatants of RBC donations were at the immune level versus 7% in blood donors born after 1976. CONCLUSION: This is the first study of the impact of RBC transfusions on MMR vaccine immunogenicity. Although lower than in the literature (immunity rates, ≥90%), the results show a high rate of immunogenicity of the MMR vaccine in chronically transfused patients. Additionally, results suggest that MMR antibody content in transfusions will continue to decrease with time. Weighing the risks and benefits of disease prevention in a vulnerable population, a reevaluation of immunization delays after RBC transfusions is called for.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".