MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285740580 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.880368

RSV Prevention in All Infants: Which Is the Most Preferable Strategy?

2022· review· en· W4285740580 on OpenAlexaff
Susanna Esposito, Bahaa Abu Raya, Eugenio Baraldi, Katie L. Flanagan, Federico Martinón‐Torres, Μαρία Τσολιά, Stefan Zielen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSanofi
KeywordsPalivizumabMedicineImmunizationPediatricsPopulationAsthmaIntensive care medicineImmunologyVirusImmune systemEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes a spectrum of respiratory illnesses in infants and young children that may lead to hospitalizations and a substantial number of outpatient visits, which result in a huge economic and healthcare burden. Most hospitalizations happen in otherwise healthy infants, highlighting the need to protect all infants against RSV. Moreover, there is evidence on the association between early-life RSV respiratory illness and recurrent wheezing/asthma-like symptoms As such, RSV is considered a global health priority. However, despite this, the only prevention strategy currently available is palivizumab, a monoclonal antibody (mAb) indicated in a subset of preterm infants or those with comorbidities, hence leaving the majority of the infant population unprotected against this virus. Therefore, development of prevention strategies against RSV for all infants entering their first RSV season constitutes a large unmet medical need. The aim of this review is to explore different immunization approaches to protect all infants against RSV. Prevention strategies include maternal immunization, immunization of infants with vaccines, immunization of infants with licensed mAbs (palivizumab), and immunization of infants with long-acting mAbs (e.g., nirsevimab, MK-1654). Of these, palivizumab use is restricted to a small population of infants and does not offer a solution for all-infant protection, whereas vaccine development in infants has encountered various challenges, including the immaturity of the infant immune system, highlighting that future pediatric vaccines will most likely be used in older infants (>6 months of age) and children. Consequently, maternal immunization and immunization of infants with long-acting mAbs represent the two feasible strategies for protection of all infants against RSV. Here, we present considerations regarding these two strategies covering key areas which include mechanism of action, "consistency" of protection, RSV variability, duration of protection, flexibility and optimal timing of immunization, benefit for the mother, programmatic implementation, and acceptance of each strategy by key stakeholders. We conclude that, based on current data, immunization of infants with long-acting mAbs might represent the most effective approach for protecting all infants entering their first 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207