MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140447452 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807521

A Cluster-Randomized Effectiveness Trial of Vi Typhoid Vaccine in India

2009· article· en· W2140447452 on OpenAlexaff
Dipika Sur, R. Leon Ochiai, Sujit Bhattacharya, Nirmal Kumar Ganguly, Mohammad Ali, Byomkesh Manna, Shanta Dutta, Allan Donner, Suman Kanungo, Jin Kyung Park, Mahesh Puri, Deok Ryun Kim, Dharitri Dutta, Barnali Bhaduri, Camilo J. Acosta, John D. Clemens

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTyphoid feverHepatitis A vaccineTyphoid vaccineHepatitis AVaccinationVaccine trialCluster (spacecraft)Confidence intervalHepatitis B vaccineRandomized controlled trialPediatricsHepatitisInternal medicineImmunologyVirologyHepatitis B virusVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Typhoid fever remains an important cause of illness and death in the developing world. Uncertainties about the protective effect of Vi polysaccharide vaccine in children under the age of 5 years and about the vaccine's effect under programmatic conditions have inhibited its use in developing countries. METHODS: We conducted a phase 4 effectiveness trial in which slum-dwelling residents of Kolkata, India, who were 2 years of age or older were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of either Vi vaccine or inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, according to geographic clusters, with 40 clusters in each study group. The subjects were then followed for 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 37,673 subjects received a dose of a study vaccine. The mean rate of vaccine coverage was 61% for the Vi vaccine clusters and 60% for the hepatitis A vaccine clusters. Typhoid fever was diagnosed in 96 subjects in the hepatitis A vaccine group, as compared with 34 in the Vi vaccine group, with no subject having more than one episode. The level of protective effectiveness for the Vi vaccine was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41 to 75; P<0.001 for the comparison with the hepatitis A vaccine group). Children who were vaccinated between the ages of 2 and 5 years had a level of protection of 80% (95% CI, 53 to 91). Among unvaccinated members of the Vi vaccine clusters, the level of protection was 44% (95% CI, 2 to 69). The overall level of protection among all residents of Vi vaccine clusters was 57% (95% CI, 37 to 71). No serious adverse events that were attributed to either vaccine were observed during the month after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The Vi vaccine was effective in young children and protected unvaccinated neighbors of Vi vaccinees. The potential for combined direct and indirect protection by Vi vaccine should be considered in future deliberations about introducing this vaccine in areas where typhoid fever is endemic. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00125008.)

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations244
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207