Should acellular pertussis vaccine be recommended to healthcare professionals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe recent changes in the epidemiology of pertussis and existing policies regarding recommended and mandatory occupational vaccinations for healthcare professionals (HCPs). The authors carried out an extensive review of references on the PubMed and SciELO databases and the official sites of the World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Brazilian Ministry of Health, using the keywords pertussis, vaccines and healthcare professionals. Vaccination against pertussis is recommended for HCPs in the United States, Canada, nine European countries, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay, and in some countries it is compulsory. In Brazil, only one publication discussing the risk of pertussis among HCPs was found. Considering the reemergence of pertussis and the great number of associated hospitalizations and deaths registered in 2011, it is necessary to review public policies regarding HCP pertussis vaccination, particularly among workers in frequent contact with young babies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".