Guillain–Barre syndrome following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination among vaccine-eligible individuals in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-marketing surveillance studies provide conflicting evidence about whether Guillain-Barre syndrome occurs more frequently following quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV4) vaccination. We aimed to assess whether Guillain-Barre syndrome is reported more frequently following HPV4 vaccination than other vaccinations among females and males aged 9 to 26 y in the United States. We used adverse event reports received by the United States Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012 to estimate overall, age-, and sex-specific proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) and corresponding Χ2 values for reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome between 5 and 42 d following HPV vaccination. Minimum criteria for a signal using this approach are 3 or more cases, PRR≥2, and Χ2≥4. Guillain-Barre syndrome was listed as an adverse event in 45 of 14,822 reports, of which 9 reports followed HPV4 vaccination and 36 reports followed all other vaccines. The overall, age-, and sex-specific PRR estimates were uniformly below 1. In addition, the overall, age-, and sex-specific Χ2 values were uniformly below 3. Our analysis of post-marketing surveillance data does not suggest that Guillain-Barre syndrome is reported more frequently following HPV4 vaccination than other vaccinations among vaccine-eligible females or males in the United States. Our findings may be useful when discussing the risks and benefits of HPV4 vaccination.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".