Persons Living With Primary Immunodeficiency Act as Citizen Scientists and Launch Prospective Cohort Body Temperature Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although fever is considered a sign of infection, many individuals with primary immunodeficiency (PI) anecdotally report a lower-than-normal average body temperature on online forums sponsored by the Immune Deficiency Foundation (IDF). There is limited knowledge about the average body temperature and fever response in PI. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare median body temperatures between adults with and without PI diagnoses living in the same household and to engage individuals living with PI throughout the research process. METHODS: Patients with PI designed and launched a prospective cohort comparison study as citizen scientists. A multidisciplinary team designed and implemented a patient-informed study with continuous patient-driven input. Median body temperatures were compared between the 2 cohorts using the Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction. The IDF conducted a post-study patient experience survey. RESULTS: Data from 254 households were analyzed (254/350, 72.6% participation rate). The PI population was predominantly female (218/254, 85.8%), White (248/254, 97.6%), and with a median age of 49 years. The non-PI population was largely male (170/254, 66.9%), White (236/254, 92.9%), and with a median age of 53 years. Common variable immunodeficiency was the most common PI diagnosis (190/254, 74.8%). Of the 254 individuals with PI, 123 (48.4%) reported a lower-than-normal nonsick body temperature, whereas 108 (42.5%) reported a normal (between 97°F and 99°F) nonsick body temperature. Among individuals with PI, when infected, 67.7% (172/254) reported the absence of fever, whereas 19.7% (50/254) reported a normal fever response. The recorded median body temperature was minimally but statistically significantly higher for patients with PI in the morning. Although 22.4% (57/254) of patients with PI self-reported illness, a fever of 100.4°F or higher was uncommon; 77.2% (196/254) had a normal temperature (between 97°F and 99°F), and 16.2% (41/254) had a lower-than-normal temperature (between 95.0°F and 96.9°F) when sick. For these sick patients with PI, the median body temperature was minimally but statistically significantly higher for patients in the morning and early evening. Overall, 90.9% (231/254) of participants would be very likely to participate in future IDF studies, although 94.1% (239/254) participants had never taken part in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate average body temperature in individuals with PI. Although there were small statistically significant differences in body temperatures between PI and non-PI subjects, the clinical significance is unclear and should be interpreted with caution, given the methodological issues associated with our small convenience sample and study design. As PIs are heterogeneous, more research is needed about how the fever response differs among diverse PIs compared with healthy controls. This study highlights that individuals with PI are knowledgeable about their health and can offer unique insights and direction to researchers and clinicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".