MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970917405 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e31828ab382

Association between H1N1 vaccination and narcolepsy–cataplexy

2013· letter· en· W1970917405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanjeev V. Kothare, Max Wiznitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationHepatitis A vaccinePandemicEuropean unionAdverse effectAdjuvantSqualeneInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1Environmental healthFamily medicineVirologyImmunologyHepatitis ADiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineHepatitisInfectious disease (medical specialty)Virus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the beginning of the influenza A (H1N1 pdm09) pandemic in 2009, several monovalent pandemic H1N1 vaccines were licensed using fast track procedures, with limited safety data in children and adolescents.1 Nonadjuvant monovalent vaccines were used in the United States and Australia, and on a limited scale, in Europe (France, Spain) and other countries. Within the European Union (EU), 2 different vaccines with adjuvant were licensed, both containing a new generation of squalene-based adjuvant: Focetria (Novartis, Philadelphia, PA), with the MF59 adjuvant, and Pandemrix (GSK, Philadelphia, PA), containing AS03 (squalene and α-tocopherol). Arepanrix, similar to Pandemrix, was used in Canada and Brazil. The vaccine program started in the EU by September 2009; concurrently, the European Center for Disease Prevention & Control (ECDC), Vaccine Adverse Event Surveillance and Communication, and other agencies initiated an active surveillance program to monitor safety and adverse events associated with this vaccine.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207