MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070156854 · doi:10.1586/eri.10.126

Early waning of maternal measles antibodies: why immunization programs should be adapted over time

2010· letter· en· W2070156854 on OpenAlexaff
Arnaud Gagneur, Didier Pinquier

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital FleurimontUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaslesVaccinationMedicineImmunizationContext (archaeology)OffspringImmunologyMeasles vaccineAntibodyPopulationTransmission (telecommunications)Measles virusVirologyPregnancyEnvironmental healthBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary protection against measles in the first months of life is provided by transferred maternal antibodies. Since the introduction of the measles vaccine, changes in epidemiology have had major effects on the transmission of protective antibodies. The majority of women of childbearing age are now vaccinated and transfer fewer antibodies than naturally immune mothers, conferring shorter protection to their offspring. This article reveals an early loss of maternal antibodies in infants of vaccinated mothers but also in infants of naturally immune women. This increasing susceptibility window between loss of maternal antibodies and vaccination should be taken into account for a timely administration of the first dose of measles vaccine, particularly in the current context of re-emerging measles in Europe. Additional programs are needed to improve vaccination coverage within the global population and to reduce the spread of measles.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207