MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Safety and Immunogenicity of a Quadrivalent Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella Vaccine in Healthy Children

2006· article· en· W2063659379 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jay M. Lieberman, Wendy R. Williams, Jacqueline M. Miller, Steven Black, Henry R. Shinefield, Frederick W. Henderson, Colin D. Marchant, Alan Werzberger, Scott A. Halperin, Jonathan Hartzel, Stephanie O. Klopfer, F. Schödel, Barbara J. Kuter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeaslesRubellaVaricella vaccineMMR vaccineVaccinationPediatricsImmunizationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineIncidence (geometry)ImmunogenicityAdverse effectVirologyImmunologyAntibodyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was conducted to demonstrate that each of 3 consistency lots of a combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine (MMRV) would be well tolerated, induce clinically acceptable and similar immune responses to each antigen and induce immune responses similar to measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) administered concomitantly with varicella vaccine (V). An additional objective was to evaluate the persistence of antibodies 1 year postvaccination. METHODS: Study participants 12 to 23 months of age received a single injection of either one of 3 consistency lots of MMRV or MMR + V administered at separate injection sites. RESULTS: A total of 3,928 healthy children were enrolled at study sites in the United States and Canada. Immune responses to measles, mumps, rubella and varicella in children immunized with each of 3 lots of MMRV were similar and the combined response to all 3 lots was comparable to that of the control group. The 1-year antibody persistence rates for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella viruses were each greater than 95% and comparable among the recipients of the 3 consistency lots of MMRV and the control group. All vaccines were generally well tolerated during the 42 days after vaccination and the overall incidence of adverse experiences was comparable between recipients of MMRV and MMR + V. Rates of fever (temperature >or=38.9 degrees C oral equivalent or tactile) were greater in recipients of MMRV than in recipients of MMR + V (39.1% versus 33.1%, P = 0.001). Fevers were transient and there was no difference in the incidence of febrile seizures. CONCLUSIONS: MMRV was generally well tolerated and had comparable immunogenicity and overall safety profiles to MMR + V administered concomitantly. Long-term persistence of antibodies after receipt of MMRV is expected based on similar antibody titers against all 4 antigens 1 year postvaccination compared with recipients of MMR and V.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations58
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Pediatric Infectious Disease JournalSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207