Older adults and non-response to rabies post-exposure prophylaxis: Challenges and approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rabies vaccines are highly effective and immunogenic in most populations, including when used as rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (RPEP); however, there is mounting evidence that the immune response to rabies vaccines, though predicted to be adequate, may be lower in older adults. Despite this, there are no specific recommendations in Canadian guidance to monitor the serological response of older adults following RPEP. Furthermore, while Canadian guidance recommends the intramuscular route for RPEP vaccination, there is good evidence supporting the immunogenicity, effectiveness and safety of RPEP vaccination using the intradermal route. We present a case of an 87-year-old male with rabies exposure who failed to respond to two series of RPEP with intramuscular rabies vaccination but responded to a third series using intradermal vaccine administration and provide reasoning for subsequent management. This case is brought forward to prompt discussion and research as to the utility of completing serology in older adults receiving RPEP as well as vaccination strategies, including route of administration, in those who do not respond to an initial course of RPEP vaccination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".