MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091204316 · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7260.525

The future of research into rotavirus vaccine

2000· editorial· en· W2091204316 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Weijer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2000
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotavirus vaccineVirologyRotavirusMedicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The future of a potentially lifesaving vaccine for developing countries has been imperiled by its recent withdrawal from the United States market. In August 1998, tetravalent rhesus rotavirus vaccine was licensed for routine vaccination in the United States on the basis of randomised controlled trials there and in Finland. The trials showed that the vaccine had an efficacy of 49-68% in preventing rotavirus diarrhoea overall and, importantly, 69-91% efficacy in preventing severe disease.1–4 In July 1999 the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a clustering of cases of intussusception in the weeks after vaccination with tetravalent rhesus rotavirus vaccine, representing an additional risk of 1 in 10 000 for this complication.5 On the basis of this finding they recommended “postponing administration of tetravalent rhesus rotavirus vaccine to children,” and in October 1999 the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew the product from the United States market. This leaves researchers with a moral quandary: should randomised controlled trials of tetravalent rhesus rotavirus vaccine proceed in developing countries? Firstly, it may be thought that other vaccines in development (for example, human-bovine rotavirus vaccine) …

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0200.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.410 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations57
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207