Effectiveness of Serogroup C Meningococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine: Results from a Case‐Control Study in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After a mass-immunization campaign in the province of Quebec, Canada, from 1992 to 1993, a case-control study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the polysaccharide vaccine, while controlling for the potential confounding effects of selected risk factors for serogroup C meningococcal disease. METHODS: The case patient group comprised 74 individuals with confirmed serogroup C meningococcal disease reported after the beginning of the campaign until 31 March 1998. Four control subjects, matched for age and place of residence, were randomly selected from the Quebec health insurance registry. Information on case patients was obtained from regional public health departments. Case patients and control subjects (or a family member) were interviewed by telephone. The analyses were conducted by using conditional logistic regression models. RESULTS: Although the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were large as a result of the small sample sizes, a high level of protection was found among children aged >or=6 years, during the first 2 years after vaccination (vaccine effectiveness, 95%; 95% CI, 68%-99%; P<.002), and protection remained high during the following 3 years (77%; 95% CI, -364% to 99%; P=.34). For children aged 2-5 years, the estimated effectiveness was positive during the first 2 years (62%; 95% CI, -403% to 97%; P=.47) but was negative during the following period (-74%; 95% CI, -1956% to 85%; P=.66). Among children aged <2 years, there was no evidence of protection. Household crowding and disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions were associated with increased risk of disease. CONCLUSIONS: The polysaccharide vaccine remains a cost-effective option for the short-term protection of school-aged children and adults; however, conjugate vaccines are needed for younger children.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".