Immunogenicity of pneumococcal vaccination in renal transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Renal transplant recipients are at increased risk for developing invasive pneumococcal disease but may have a poor response to pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23). The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7), which induces a T-cell dependent response, may be more immunogenic in these patients. Methods. This study is a randomized controlled double-blind trial in 60 adult renal transplant recipients at two transplant centers. Patients between 3 months and 3 years post-transplant were given a single dose of PPV23 or PCV7. Immunogenicity was assessed at 8 weeks post-vaccination by serotype-specific antibody and opsonophagocytic assay (OPA). Results. Baseline demographics, renal function, time from transplant and immunosuppression were comparable in the two vaccinated groups. There were no serious acute adverse reactions to either vaccine. The vaccine response rate (defined as a 32-fold rise in antibody titer and an absolute titer of 31 mug/mL) was improved in the conjugate vaccine group for serotypes 23F (p = 0.046), and 6B (p = 0.067) but was not significantly different for the remaining 5 serotypes. Response to at least one serotype occurred in 73.3% vs. 53.3% respectively (p = 0.11). Mean fold increases in antibody titer were for higher with conjugate vaccine for serotypes 23F (p = 0.046) and 9V (p = 0.09). However, response rate and mean fold increase in OPA titer were not significantly different between the two groups for any of the seven serotypes. Conclusion. There was a trend towards enhanced immunogenicity for conjugate vaccine by ELISA. However, functional antibody responses were not different between the two groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".