MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2150135179 · doi:10.1093/pch/5.3.155

Haemophilus influenzae type b disease control using Pentacel

2000· article· en· W2150135179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophilus influenzaeMicrobiologyHaemophilusMedicineVirologyBiologyBacteriaAntibioticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPACT (Immunization Monitoring Program, ACTive) investigators reported a dramatic decline in the cases of invasive Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) at the program's 11 (now 12) paediatric centres with the introduction of Hib conjugate vaccine programs. Between 1985 and 1995, case totals fell from 485 to 20 cases. Eight cases were seen in both 1996 and 1997. During 1997, provinces switched to Pentacel (Pasteur Mérieux Connaught Canada, North York, Ontario) as the vehicle for Hib vaccination. It is reassuring that in the two subsequent years, only a single case of Hib infection was detected among children who completed a three-dose primary series, indicating that the Hib component of Pentacel is highly effective. Of the 16 cases seen from 1998 to 1999, six had not been appropriately vaccinated because their parents refused immunization. Another child had recently emigrated from a country where Hib vaccination is not routine. The remaining cases were nonpreventable, the patient being either too young to have completed primary immunization (one case) or occurring in children vaccinated before the introduction of Pentacel (seven cases). The case total in 1999 would have been four if the vaccination not been refused in three instances.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicBacterial Infections and Vaccines→French-language works237,207→