Recent differing expert opinions regarding the safety profile of hepatitis B vaccines: is there really a controversy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent papers in Expert Opinion on Drug Safety arrived at different conclusions about the safety of hepatitis B vaccines. In one of these, review of the epidemiological literature failed to confirm the serious allegations raised with respect to vaccination. In the other, review of case reports and the authors' analytical method suggested serious adverse events are associated with the vaccine. In particular, they suggested a strong relationship with multiple sclerosis, the adverse event that has been the focus of several epidemiological investigations and has been found not to be related to vaccination. The method, using data from reported cases, attempted to compute relative and attributable risks using adult Td vaccine as a comparator. The authors made errors in assumptions about the data, including inappropriate use of controls and inappropriate application of epidemiology, rendering the conclusions invalid. Passive reporting data should be analysed with care and used only for hypothesis generation - anything more requires robust epidemiological study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".