Proportional of wheezing events in asthmatic children post-vaccination of annual flu vaccine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The common childhood chronic disease asthma causes hospitalisation and exacerbations due to respiratory tract viral infections like influenza. Due to uncertainty about the benefits and role of influenza vaccines in preventing asthma exacerbations, many children with asthma do not receive them, despite recommendations from organisations like the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunisation. There are two main types of influenza vaccines: intramuscular trivalent inactivated and intranasal cold-adapted, live attenuated. Both vaccines are highly immunogenic and induce an adequate immune response, but their clinical efficacy varies by season and age. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of increased wheeze rates in stable asthmatic children who received the annual flu vaccine, compared to a control group of asthmatic children who did not receive the vaccine. Methods: A retrospective study at the Queen Rania Abdullah for Children Hospital in Amman, Jordan, examined the vaccination status of 200 asthmatic children aged 3-14. The study focused on recurrent wheezing episodes and the minimum 12-month period between the last annual flu vaccination and asthmatic exacerbation. The study excluded uncontrolled or partially controlled patients for the past 12 months. Data was collected from demographic information, vaccination history, and past wheezing episodes. The children were divided into two groups, one without the flu vaccine and the other with the flu vaccine. A comprehensive questionnaire was used to assess sociodemographic and disease-related factors. If children received the vaccination as per the National Vaccination Schedule, their vaccination status was considered complete. Results: A study of 200 asthmatic children in Jordan found that 35% did not receive a flu vaccine, placing them in Group I. 65% had received a flu vaccine in the previous year. Males had higher distribution rates in both flu-based groups, with a statistically insignificant positive correlation. Age categories showed similar distribution rates, with 21.0% for 3-6 years, 34.0% for 6-9 years, 37.5% for 9-12 years, and 7.5% for 12-15 years. No significant correlation was found between receiving the flu vaccine and wheezing rates in the last seasonal year. Frequent wheezing episodes were higher in experienced groups than in naïve groups.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».