MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2095286704 · doi:10.2217/17455111.2.3.351

Update on Childhood Pneumococcal Vaccination

2008· article· en· W2095286704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clayton Chiu, Greta Ridley, Robert Menzies, Peter McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumococcal diseaseVaccinationEpidemiologyPneumococcal conjugate vaccinePneumococcal infectionsSerotypePediatricsPopulationDiseaseClinical trialImmunologyEnvironmental healthStreptococcus pneumoniaeBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the efficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) against invasive pneumococcal disease in young children was first demonstrated in clinical trials in California, USA, in the late 1990s, it has been studied in more diverse populations and introduced into infant vaccination programs in the USA, Australia, Canada and several European countries. This review briefly describes the epidemiology of pneumococcal disease, recent literature on PCV trials in various study populations, the impact of 7-valent PCV infant vaccination on the epidemiology of invasive pneumococcal disease, with special reference to indirect effects in older age groups and the emergence of serotype replacement disease. Variations in vaccine administration schedules, effects on noninvasive pneumococcal diseases, and the use of the polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine or future formulations of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines from the perspective of policy decisions for population-wide childhood pneumococcal vaccination programs are also highlighted.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.009

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Health→Same topicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections→French-language works237,207→