Transmission of Bordetella pertussis to Young Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pertussis vaccination has reduced the number of notified cases in industrialized countries from peak years by more than 95%. The effect of recently recommended adult and adolescent vaccination strategies on infant pertussis depends, in part, on the proportion of infants infected by adults and adolescents. This proportion, however, remains unclear, because studies have not been able to determine the source case for 47%–60% of infant cases. Methods: A prospective international multicenter study was conducted of laboratory confirmed infant pertussis cases (aged ≤6 months) and their household and nonhousehold contacts. Comprehensive diagnostic evaluation (including PCR and serology) was performed on all participants independent of symptoms. Source cases were identified and described by relationship to the infant, age and household status. Results: The study population comprised 95 index cases and 404 contacts. The source of pertussis was identified for 48% of infants in the primary analysis and up to 78% in sensitivity analyses. In the primary analysis, parents accounted for 55% of source cases, followed by siblings (16%), aunts/uncles (10%), friends/cousins (10%), grandparents (6%) and part-time caretakers (2%). The distribution of source cases was robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: This study provides solid evidence that among infants for whom a source case was identified, household members were responsible for 76%–83% of transmission of Bordetella pertussis to this high-risk group. Vaccination of adolescents and adults in close contact with young infants may thus eliminate a substantial proportion of infant pertussis if high coverage rates can be achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".