Commentary: Ongoing debate over the safety of the different mumps vaccine strains impacts mumps disease control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The worldwide use of vaccines has resulted not only in significant achievements in controlling disease but also in disease eradication; smallpox was eradicated in 1977 and there is a global goal for polio eradication by 2005. Additionally, global efforts are already underway towards accelerated measles control. In 1992, mumps disease was recognized as one of six potentially eradicable diseases by the International Task Force for Disease Eradication (ITFDE).1 The ITFDE is a group of scientists convened through the Carter Center of Emory University in Atlanta, GA, that met from 1989 to 1992 to evaluate the potential for eradication of more than 90 diseases. The ITFDE also recognized the potential for the eradication of rubella and suggested that the effort to eradicate measles, mumps and rubella be combined through the use of the trivalent MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Today, as many countries embark on accelerated measles control or elimination activities, there is a unique opportunity to control mumps and rubella diseases and to work towards the ITFDE goal of eradication through use of the MMR vaccine. However, this opportunity is being missed while debate continues concerning the safety profiles of the different mumps vaccine strains to be incorporated in MMR formulations. Opportunities for control are also affected by differences in the cost of vaccines prepared with the different strains. The present paper2 adds to the debate by contributing additional data on the safety profile of the Leningrad Zagreb strain of the mumps vaccine and discussing the issues of cost as they relate to national immunization programmes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.077 | 0.074 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".