Update on herpes zoster vaccination: a family practitioner's guide.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To answer frequently asked questions surrounding the use of the new herpes zoster (HZ) vaccine. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Published results of clinical trials and other studies, recommendations from the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization, and the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; data were also obtained from the vaccine's Health Canada-approved product monograph. MAIN MESSAGE: Herpes zoster results from reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus; postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is its most common and serious complication. The incidence of PHN after HZ is directly related to age, with 50% of affected individuals older than 60 years experiencing persistent and unrelieved pain. The live virus HZ vaccine reduces the incidence of HZ by about 50% and the occurrence of PHN by two-thirds, with vaccinated individuals experiencing attenuated or shortened symptoms. The vaccine is contraindicated in many immunocompromised patients and might not be effective in patients taking antiviral medications active against the HZ virus. Physicians should be aware of the different recommendations for these groups. CONCLUSION: The HZ vaccine is a safe and effective preventive measure for reducing the overall burden and severity of HZ in older adults. The vaccine appears to be cost-effective when administered to adults aged 60 years and older.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.041 |
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".