Retrospective study on the safety of <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 vaccination in myasthenia gravis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/AIM: Given the lack of information on safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in myasthenia gravis (MG) patients, we aimed to review our experience after surveying patients, as part of routine clinical practice, to ensure that advice on safety is accurate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of MG patients from the Prosserman Family Neuromuscular Clinic at the Toronto General Hospital who received two injections of any COVID-19 vaccine from February to August 2021. Demographic data were abstracted from the patient medical records. We assessed changes in the severity of MG using the virtual Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index (vMGII), the simple single question (SSQ), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS). We also assessed adverse effects after vaccination. RESULTS: We included 200 patients with a mean age of 64.3 ± 13.9 y, 51.5% were men, and 82% had generalized MG. The vMGII, SSQ, and PASS scores remained stable after each vaccine dose, and at last follow-up. Of the patients, 60% reported an adverse reaction after the first injection, and 56% after the second. The most common adverse reactions reported were local pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and fever. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 vaccinations were well tolerated in MG patients and were not associated with worsening severity of their MG. The prevalence of vaccine-related adverse reactions was the same as in the general population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".