Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prophylaxis in Immunocompromised Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised children are at increased risk for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection with associated morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis is usually provided to these children on a case-by-case basis. METHODS: Immunocompromised children who received ≥1 injection of palivizumab were prospectively enrolled across 32 Canadian sites, between 2005 and 2017, during the RSV season. We assessed respiratory illness hospitalization (RIH) and RSV-related hospitalization (RSVH) hazard ratios (HRs) in immunocompromised children versus infants' prophylaxed for standard indications (SI: prematurity ≤35 weeks' gestation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and congenital heart disease) and complex medical disorders (CMD). Data were analyzed using t-tests, χ and Cox proportional hazards adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 25,003 infants were recruited; 214 immunocompromised, 4283 CMD, 20,506 SI. On average, children received 4.4 ± 1.3 injections. A total of 16,231 children were perfectly adherent (58.4% immunodeficiency, 68.9% CMD, 64.2% SI; P < 0.0005). A higher proportion of immunocompromised children were aboriginal and exposed to smoking compared with CMD and SI. Immunocompromised children also had a higher median; gestational and enrollment age and birth weight compared with CMD and SI. Immunodeficient children had a higher RIH risk compared with SI (HR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.3-4.7, P = 0.009) but were similar to CMD (HR = 1.7, 95% confidence interval, 0.9-3.4, P = 0.118). RSVH in prophylaxed, immunocompromised children was similar to CMD (HR < 0.005, P = 0.955) and SI (HR < 0.005, P = 0.953). CONCLUSIONS: Immunocompromised children who received palivizumab had an increased RIH hazard compared with the SI group. Similar RSVH hazard between the 3 groups suggests that immunocompromised children may benefit from palivizumab during the RSV season.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".