MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133944068 · doi:10.1086/367667

Oculo‐respiratory Syndrome: A New Influenza Vaccine–Associated Adverse Event?

2003· article· en· W2133944068 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danuta M. Skowronski, Barbara Strauss, Gaston De Serres, Diane Macdonald, Stephen A. Marion, Monika Naus, David M. Patrick, Perry Kendall

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecHealth CanadaBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationAdverse effectInfluenza vaccineImmunizationPediatricsTrivalent influenza vaccineInternal medicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 2000–2001 influenza immunization campaign in Canada, a new adverse event, oculo-respiratory syndrome (ORS), was noted in association with administration of vaccine supplied by one manufacturer. The original case definition for ORS specified bilateral conjunctivitis, facial edema, or respiratory symptoms beginning 2–24 h after influenza vaccination and resolving within 48 h after onset. To characterize the spectrum, severity, and impact of ORS, we contacted persons who had reported any influenza vaccine-associated adverse event in British Columbia, Canada, during the 2000–2001 vaccination campaign. With use of a standardized telephone interview, we collected information from 609 (79%) of 769 eligible persons. Thirteen percent of ORS-affected persons reported onset ⩽2 h after vaccination, 27% experienced symptoms for >48 h, and 42% considered the symptoms to be severe. The surveillance case definition for ORS for 2001–2002 was revised to include onset ⩽24 h after vaccination, with no restriction on duration. ORS should be incorporated into annual influenza vaccine safety monitoring.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations58
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207