MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1777067084 · doi:10.1093/pch/14.4.245

Vaccination site reaction or bacterial cellulitis?

2009· article· en· W1777067084 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keswadee Lapphra, David W. Scheifele

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnonymityCellulitisCLARITYMedicineVaccinationPediatricsSurgeryImmunologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A four-year-old boy was given his preschool booster dose of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and inactivated polio vaccine (DTaP/IPV) yesterday, and today, he has extensive redness and swelling at the injection site. Could this be bacterial cellulitis? Should I admit him for intravenous antibiotic therapy? Is another disease mechanism responsible? This situation is not rare; the Immunization Monitoring Program ACTive surveillance network of Canadian paediatric centres has detected 16 admissions since 2002 for similar events, all among children four to five years of age receiving the preschool booster vaccination. Of note, two of the 12 Immunization Monitoring Program ACTive centres accounted for 88% of the case reports, implying that some paediatricians manage such cases more conservatively than others. All of the patients received antibiotics in hospital, but none had a positive blood or lesion culture. Paediatricians are generally aware that the DTaP/IPV vaccine can cause large local inflammatory reactions, especially after the fifth (preschool) dose. Particularly large reactions invite confusion with bacterial cellulitis. Studies (1,2) of the preschool DTaP/IPV booster dose documented that 19.3% to 33% of children have a large local reaction (redness and/or swelling 50 mm in diameter or greater), and 1% to 2% have extensive limb swelling from shoulder to elbow. The inflammatory changes become evident a few hours after vaccination, peak 24 h to 48 h afterward and resolve within one week. Tenderness is usually greatest during the first few hours and subsides as the reaction enlarges. Limitation of motion is uncommon. Systemic symptoms are infrequent, including fever (1–4). Ultrasound studies by Marshall et al (5) suggested that reactions involved angioedema rather than inflammatory cellulitis. Exact pathogenesis is uncertain but cellular immunity to vaccine antigens may contribute (6). The frequency of large reactions can be reduced by using vaccines with reduced antigen content (not yet approved for routine use) (2).

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207