The Effectiveness of <i>Coxiella burnetii</i> Vaccines in Occupationally Exposed Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the effect of vaccination in preventing acute Q fever in individuals occupationally exposed to Coxiella burnetii, a systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken in controlled trials and observational studies. Publications were obtained through a scoping study of English and non-English articles, and those reporting a commercially licensed or licensable vaccine compared with an unvaccinated or placebo control group were included in the review. Two authors performed independent assessment of risk of systematic error and data extraction. One controlled trial and five cohort publications met the inclusion criteria. All trials used a Henzerling phase I vaccine. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated significant protection in abattoir workers (RR = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.22) compared with the control individuals. In individuals with rare or sporadic contact with the abattoir, a significant benefit of vaccination was also found (RR = 0.06; 95% CI 0-0.93). Overall, the vaccine effectively prevented acute Q fever in individuals responsible for handling animals or their products and those working in the abattoir but not directly exposed to animals (RR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.18). Caution must be taken when interpreting the effect of C. burnetii vaccination as significant heterogeneity amongst publications was observed. A meta-regression found no significant univariate associations. This may reflect the uncertainty provided by reported data in the cohort publications. Potential systematic biases were present in the publications, and evidence included may not be sufficiently robust to extrapolate the effect of vaccination on occupationally exposed groups beyond the population of abattoir employees in Australia where all included studies occurred.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".