MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2104234063 · doi:10.5897/jidi.9000001

A cost effectiveness analysis of the H1N1 vaccine strategy for Ontario, Canada

2011· article· en· W2104234063 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna P. Durbin, A. N. Corallo, Theodoras G. Wibisono, Dionne M. Aleman, Brian Schwartz, Peter C. Coyte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Infectious Diseases and Immunity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicVaccinationCost-effectiveness analysisChristian ministryMedicineCost–benefit analysisCost effectivenessGovernment (linguistics)Environmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)VirologyPolitical scienceRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ontario, Canada, a mass vaccination strategy was developed and implemented to mitigate the effects of the 2009 pandemic influenza A (pH1N1). This study investigated its cost-effectiveness, mirroring actual events in Ontario, compared to no vaccine strategy. From a societal perspective, 1,780,491 cases and 154 deaths were averted through vaccine administration; the incremental cost effectiveness ratio predicted that the vaccination program saved $117 per case avoided, or $1.35 million per death averted, for total savings of $208.3 million. From a government perspective (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care) this strategy required an expenditure of $28 per case averted and $0.33 million per death averted, for a total cost of $252.4 million.   Key words: Cost effectiveness, H1N1, Ontario, pandemic influenza, 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Infectious Diseases and Immunity→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→