MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1054027755 · doi:10.1093/femspd/ftv057

What to do about pertussis vaccines? Linking what we know about pertussis vaccine effectiveness, immunology and disease transmission to create a better vaccine: Graphical Abstract Figure.

2015· review· en· W1054027755 on OpenAlexaff
Shelly Bolotin, Eric T. Harvill, Natasha S. Crowcroft

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens and Disease · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBordetella pertussisWhooping coughPertussis vaccineMedicineImmunizationTransmission (telecommunications)ImmunologyPopulationImmunityVaccine efficacyDiseaseVirologyHerd immunityVaccinationBiologyImmune systemEnvironmental healthComputer scienceBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pertussis (whooping cough) is a respiratory disease caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Despite the implementation of immunization programs and high vaccine coverage in most jurisdictions, pertussis is still one of the most common vaccine-preventable diseases, suggesting that the current vaccines and immunization schedules have not been sufficiently effective. Several factors are thought to contribute to this. The acellular pertussis vaccine that has been used in many jurisdictions since the 1990s is less effective than the previously used whole-cell vaccine, with immunity waning over time. Both whole-cell and acellular pertussis vaccines are effective at reducing disease severity but not transmission, resulting in outbreaks in vaccinated cohorts. In this review, we discuss various limitations of the current approaches to protection from pertussis and outline various options for reducing the burden of pertussis on a population level.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogens and DiseaseSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207