Impact des injections multiples sur l'observance du calendrier de vaccination et opinions des parents en Montérégie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to explore the impact of adding new vaccines on schedule adherence and parental opinion of multiple injections. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study by self-administered questionnaire mailed to a stratified random sample of each of two cohorts of children drawn from the Monteregie Birth Register: the 2002-2003 cohort (old vaccination schedule) and the 2004-2005 cohort (new schedule). Two surveys were done: Survey 1 (fall 2005-winter 2006) questioned parents whose address could be validated by Canada411.ca; Survey 2 (fall 2006) surveyed parents whose address was validated by the Quebec health insurance board (RAMQ). Incomplete or missing vaccine data were completed by verifying the vaccinators’ files. Results: Analysis of schedule adherence by the Kaplan-Meier survival approach showed that the 2nd and 3rd doses of the DTaP-P-Hib vaccine were received late by the youngest children compared to the oldest (median number of days late: 2 days for the 2nd vaccine (p=0.013) and 4 days for the 3rd vaccine (p<0.001)). Many parents (76%) prefer 2 to 3 injections during a single visit, and 61% fear an increase in the risk of side effects. Conclusion: Even if the evaluated lateness has only a small public health impact, parents must be reassured about the safety of multiple vaccines. Key words: Immunization; infants; multiple injections; late 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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".