Primary Versus Secondary Failure After Varicella Vaccination
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two-dose varicella vaccination is recommended for optimal control of varicella in populations with high (>90%) 1-dose coverage. Optimal timing of the second dose may depend on whether breakthrough varicella results from primary vaccine failure (no protective immunity after vaccination) or secondary vaccine failure (waning protective immunity). METHODS: Published literature (1995 to 2012) on vaccine failure after varicella vaccination cited in PubMed and other online sources was reviewed. RESULTS: Nineteen publications detailed 21 varicella outbreaks with breakthrough varicella rates ranging from 0% to 42%; the publications showed no consistent trend between breakthrough varicella rate and time since vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Literature to date indicates a relatively high rate of primary vaccine failure and limited evidence of secondary vaccine failure among 1-dose varicella vaccine recipients, suggesting that a short interval between 2 doses might be preferable in countries considering implementation of universal varicella vaccination to reduce breakthrough varicella. However, any potential disruption to well-established vaccination schedules should be considered.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it