MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154341263 · doi:10.1177/1740774511419868

Strategies for successful rapid trials of influenza vaccine

2011· article· en· W2154341263 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David W. Scheifele, Kim Marty, Carol LaJeunesse, Shu Yu Fan, Gordean Bjornson, Joanne M. Langley, Scott A. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTimelineMedicineExpeditingPandemicVaccinationLicensureAttendanceSeasonal influenzaFamily medicineInfluenza vaccineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Medical emergencyImmunologyInternal medicineMedical educationStatisticsInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In contrast to the gradual pace of conventional vaccine trials, evaluation of influenza vaccines often must be accelerated for use in a pandemic or for annual re-licensure. Descriptions of how best to design studies for rapid completion are few. PURPOSE: In August, 2010, we conducted a rapid trial with a seasonal influenza vaccine for 2010-2011 given to persons vaccinated with an adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine in 2009, to determine whether re-exposure to the H1N1(2009) component of the seasonal vaccine would cause increased reactions. We describe the strategies that we believe were responsible for success in meeting the desired timeline. METHODS: The key means for expediting the study were: use of a few experienced, well-staffed centers; efficient completion of administrative approvals; advance recruitment of volunteers; synchronized start among centers with rapid completion (≤1 week) of first visits; rapid data assembly via the Internet; and a well-prepared data analysis plan. We chose to use a randomized, blinded, cross-over design to allow estimation of vaccine-attributable adverse event rates, with sufficient power (320 participants) to detect events occurring at true rates ≥1% with ≥90% probability. RESULTS: Planned enrollment numbers, center synchronization, and timelines, including review by a safety board prior to the cross-over step (second doses), were achieved. A detailed safety report was delivered to federal health officials just 32 days after study initiation and was used to fine-tune public messaging prior to the mass vaccination programs across Canada. LIMITATIONS: This aggressive timeline could not have been met without opportunities for careful planning and the prior existence of a network of experienced, collaborating trial centers. CONCLUSIONS: The means used to accelerate this study timeline were successful and could be used in other urgent situations but the mechanics of collaborative trials must be well rehearsed as a precondition.

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)0.314
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.232
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3140.232
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.816
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207