Zanamivir versus trivalent split virus influenza vaccine: a pilot randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers may be exposed to people with respiratory viral infections more often than other working adults. Understanding the risk and the effectiveness of different preventive measures is of great importance. OBJECTIVES: To estimate adherence to prophylactic antiviral medication for a full influenza season, to the compare efficacy of antiviral prophylaxis to that of the seasonal influenza vaccine and to identify exposures that increase risk of acute respiratory illnesses (ARI) in healthy adults. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:2 to receive the 2008-2009 influenza vaccine or daily prophylaxis with 10 mg of zanamivir during the season. Web-based questionnaires collected information on demographics, symptoms, exposures, medication use and side effects. RESULTS: Sixty-four healthy adults were recruited in November 2008. Three of 40 active participants discontinued zanamivir due to side effects; the remaining 37 took >85% of scheduled doses for a median of 121 days. Symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed influenza was detected in one person randomized to zanamivir (2·5%) and 2/20 (10%) who received the vaccine (P = 0·25). Forty-seven participants reported 109 episodes of ARI. Factors associated with an ARI were exposure to a spouse (OR 7·2), child (OR 2·4) or patient (OR 2·0) with symptoms of an ARI in the previous 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Breakthrough influenza infection occurred in both vaccinated participants and those receiving antiviral prophylaxis. Most adults were willing and able to comply with season-long prophylaxis. Report of recent exposure to family members and patients with an ARI increased the risk of developing an ARI in healthy adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".