MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404124749 · doi:10.1016/j.clim.2024.110395

Assessing humoral immunity in daily practice: A retrospective study in a pediatric tertiary center

2024· article· en· W4404124749 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Sainz Fernández, Hélène Decaluwe, Jean Jacques De Bruycker, Élie Haddad, Fabien Touzot

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Immunology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCenter (category theory)Humoral immunityMedicineImmunityTertiary careRetrospective cohort studyImmunologyImmune systemInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of humoral immunity is usually performed through the assessment of serum immunoglobulin levels, vaccine titer responses, and B-cell enumeration and phenotyping. We performed a retrospective study assessing humoral immunity in 469 pediatric patients referred at the Sainte-Justine University Hospital Center. Almost half of the patients had at least one abnormal humoral immunological parameter at their evaluation, with low vaccine response titer to protein antigen being the most frequent. Fifteen patients (3.2 %) had a proven monogenic IEI, and 21 patients (4.5 %) required Ig replacement. Besides the infectious burden, hypoIgG remains the only parameter associated with Ig replacement therapy after the age of 6 years. Low antibody titers against conjugate vaccines had low sensitivity and positive predictive values for starting Ig replacement. Our study highlights the challenge of evaluating the humoral function in the pediatric population with suspected IEI with significant age and sex-dependent variability between parameters.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ImmunologySame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207