MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024312400 · doi:10.1136/bmj.38170.691956.ae

Identification of potential candidates for varicella vaccination by history: questionnaire and seroprevalence study

2004· article· en· W2024312400 on OpenAlexaff
Eithne MacMahon, Lisa J Brown, Sarah Bexley, David Snashall, Dipti Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChickenpoxSeroprevalenceMedicineShinglesVaccinationChickenpox VaccineVaricella zoster virusHealth careVaricella vaccinePediatricsFamily medicineImmunologyImmunizationVirusSerologyAntibodyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidance from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation regarding varicella vaccination of workers in healthcare settings is imminent.1 The new recommendations will advise that all those with a negative or uncertain history of chickenpox or shingles at pre-employment assessment should be tested for varicella zoster virus IgG. Vaccination with the newly licensed varicella vaccine will be advised for those with a seronegative result. A history of chickenpox has a high positive predictive value for immunity among healthcare workers in Europe, where the seroprevalence is as high as 98.5%.2 The validity of a history of chickenpox is unknown in those from tropical countries, however, where the mean age of infection is in early adulthood.3 Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust in inner London has some 8000 staff and 4700 healthcare students of increasingly heterogeneous origins.4 5 We conducted a questionnaire and seroprevalence study at the hospital to ascertain the relations between history of chickenpox, countries …

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207