Comparison of influenza vaccine regimens in pediatric patients:immunity and efficacy in 2014–15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, there are two types of influenza vaccines available to children and adolescents, Influenza Inactivated Vaccine (IIV) which is administered intramuscularly, and Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) which is administered intranasally. The present study was designed to compare the efficacy of the two vaccines in pediatric patients in eliciting immune responses and protecting against infection in the 2014–15 influenza season. To conduct the study, patients ranging from ages 3 to 17 years were recruited for vaccination and evaluation. Patients were segregated by age (3 to 8 vs. 9 to17) and vaccine (IIV vs. LAIV). Peripheral blood samples were collected between the months of August and December, 2014 and processed for collection and storage of serum, plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Each child who agreed to participate in the study was prescreened, consented and provided blood samples at three time points: D0 (blood drawn prior to vaccination), D7 and D21 following influenza vaccination. At the end of the vaccination season and once all enrolled patient samples had been collected, antibody responses were evaluated for reactivity to the vaccine strains as well as against additional circulating or heterogonous strains of influenza. Early in the 2014–15 season, it became apparent that the LAIV strain in the vaccine was not well matched to the circulating strain of influenza, resulting in less-than-effective immunity. Therefore, our analyses focused on IIV only. Our results showed that all participants in the study demonstrated higher titers and increased breadth of reactivity to diverse influenza strains when vaccinated with IIV, regardless of prior vaccination history.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".