MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971610475 · doi:10.1586/14760584.2015.979799

Evolving meningococcal immunization strategies

2014· review· en· W1971610475 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marco Aurélio Palazzi Sáfadi, Julie A. Bettinger, Gabriela Moreno Maturana, Godwin Enwere, Ray Borrow

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeningococcal diseaseImmunizationMedicineMeningococcal vaccineConjugate vaccineVaccinationMeningitisPublic healthEpidemiologyIncidence (geometry)Neisseria meningitidisDiseaseDisease burdenVirologyImmunologyEnvironmental healthPediatricsPopulationAntigenBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meningococcal disease is a major public health problem and immunization is considered the best strategy for prevention. The introduction of meningococcal C conjugate immunization schedules that targeted adolescents, with catch-up programs in several European countries, Australia and Canada proved to be highly effective, with dramatic reduction in the incidence of serogroup C disease, not only in vaccinated, but also in unvaccinated individuals. Meningococcal quadrivalent (A, C, W, Y) conjugate vaccines are now licensed and are being used in adolescent programs in North America and to control serogroup W disease in South America. In the African meningitis belt, a mass immunization campaign against serogroup A disease using a meningococcal A conjugate vaccine is now controlling the devastating epidemics of meningococcal disease. After introducing new immunization programs, it is of importance to maintain enhanced surveillance for a better understanding of the changing nature of disease epidemiology. This information is crucial for identifying optimal immunization policies.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207