MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124657126 · doi:10.1093/epirev/mxj007

Prevention of Congenital Rubella Syndrome--What Makes Sense in 2006?

2006· review· en· W2124657126 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiologic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsProvincial Laboratory of Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRubellaCongenital rubella syndromeImmunizationRubella vaccinePediatricsPregnancyImmunologyVaccinationMeaslesAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes the practical aspects of rubella immunization programs in both developed and developing countries. Routine use of rubella vaccine is gradually resulting in the elimination of endemic rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in the developed world, and routine use of vaccine in young children is now being implemented in many developing countries. However, such programs must achieve high immunization rates or be supplemented by the immunization of seronegative women of childbearing age to prevent a paradoxical increase in CRS as the burden of illness is shifted to an older age group. There are many successful prenatal screening programs for rubella immunity in developed countries, but screening prior to pregnancy could theoretically prevent even more cases of CRS. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is the most commonly used laboratory test for screening, but the protective titer remains to be established. The need for reimmunization of women who serorevert or who remain seronegative following rubella vaccine has not been established. Surveillance for rubella cases and for CRS is vital in assessment of the ongoing success of rubella immunization programs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologic ReviewsSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207