MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2043660229 · doi:10.2310/7750.2011.10033

A Refresher on Herpes Zoster, Current Status on Vaccination, and the Role of the Dermatologist

2011· review· en· W2043660229 on OpenAlexafffund
Lyn Guenther, Charles Lynde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGuenther Dermatology Research CentreLynde Centre for DermatologyUniversity of Toronto
FundersImmunodeficiency CanadaMerck
KeywordsMedicinePostherpetic neuralgiaVaccinationImmunogenicityDermatologyPediatricsImmunologyAlternative medicineImmune systemPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) have a significant impact on quality of life. PHN is often chronic and difficult to treat. Dermatologists have always been involved in making the diagnosis of these conditions and, most recently, teaching the need for early antiviral therapy. OBJECTIVE: With the introduction of a new vaccine, HZ and its difficult-to-treat complication PHN can be prevented or minimized. Preventive medicine is important and has been supported by dermatologists with sun safety programs. Patients receiving biologics are at increased risk of developing zoster. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists should embrace zoster vaccination and recommend routine vaccination of immunocompetent individuals > age 60 years, as well as patients of any age who are starting immunosuppressants, including biologics. Given that individuals over age 50 years are at risk for PHN and studies have shown that the vaccine's immunogenicity and safety are maintained in individuals age 50 to 59 years, vaccination in this age group may be considered. Some dermatologists may consider vaccinating their own patients, but most will likely recommend that vaccination be performed by their patients' primary care physicians.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery→Same topicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments→French-language works237,207→