MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124958591 · doi:10.1017/s0950268813002859

Healthcare workers and measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) status: how worried should we be about further outbreaks?

2013· article· en· W2124958591 on OpenAlexaff
Subhashis Basu, Prosenjit Giri, Anil Adisesh, Rosemary McNaught

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsSaint John Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaslesMedicineRubellaOutbreakMMR vaccineSerologyVaccinationMeasles-Mumps-Rubella VaccineHealth carePediatricsCohortMumps virusEnvironmental healthImmunologyVirologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, a number of outbreaks of measles and mumps have occurred within the UK and Europe. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of contracting and transmitting disease to patients and staff. To examine this risk at the point of entry to healthcare, we assessed the serological results of new HCWs presenting for pre-placement clearance without evidence of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) immunity between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2012. Overall rates of serological positivity to MMR across all age groups were 88·2%, 68·8% and 93·9%, respectively. With regard to measles and mumps, there were statistically significant decreases in the percentage of HCWs born after 1980 that had positive serology (P < 0·05). No such differences were seen between healthcare groups. Most seronegative HCWs accepted MMR vaccination. Despite our entry-level findings, the ongoing risk of a MMR outbreak within this cohort of HCWs appears low.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207