MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of live zoster vaccine in preventing zoster and postherpetic neuralgia

2011· review· en· W1590883467 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Don Gilden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPostherpetic neuralgiaMedicineShinglesVaricella zoster virusFamily medicineDermatologyVirologyVirusAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Gilden D (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA). Efficacy of live zoster vaccine in preventing zoster and postherpetic neuralgia (Review). J Intern Med 2011; 269: 496–506. Declining cell-mediated immunity to varicella zoster virus (VZV) in elderly individuals results in virus reactivation manifest by zoster (shingles) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). To prevent virus reactivation, a new VZV vaccine (Zostavax; Merck) that boosts cell-mediated immunity to VZV was developed. The 3-year Shingles Prevention Study showed that Zostavax significantly reduced burden of disease because of zoster and PHN. Despite its cost-effectiveness for adults aged 65–75 years, as determined in the United States, Canada and UK, <2% of immunocompetent adults over age 60 years in the United States were immunized in 2007. This was because of a combination of lack of patient awareness of the vaccine, physicians’ uncertainty about the duration of protection and different cost-sharing plans for immunization. Nevertheless, zoster vaccine is safe, effective and highly recommended for immunization of immunocompetent individuals over age 60 years with no history of recent zoster.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207