Solicited Adverse Events After Influenza Immunization Among Infants, Toddlers, and Their Household Contacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We assessed adverse events, including oculorespiratory syndrome, following influenza immunization during the first year of a publicly-funded program for infants, toddlers and their household members in Canada. METHODS: Parents bringing infants and toddlers for influenza immunization to clinics in Quebec or British Columbia consented to structured telephone interview 5 to 10 days later. One adult provided information for all household members. Symptom experience commencing before and after immunization was assessed. Non-immunized persons also served as a comparison group for immunized household members. RESULTS: Sample included 690 immunized infants and toddlers and 1801 household members, 1374 immunized. Only fussiness, fever, decreased appetite, drowsiness, and nasal congestion/coryza were reported for >5% of infants/ toddlers within 72 hours of immunization, but only arm discomfort was reported among >5% of immunized household contacts. In multivariate analysis, muscle ache was the only systemic symptom reported more often by immunized household members compared to non-immunized persons. Oculorespiratory symptoms were infrequent and there was no difference between immunized and non-immunized household members in their report. Less than 1% of adults required time off work because of adverse events following influenza immunization in the household. Less than 2% of subjects experiencing an adverse event following influenza immunization were considered unlikely to be vaccinated again. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccine is well-tolerated by infants, toddlers and their household members. Post-marketing observational designs are an expedient way to assess adverse events following influenza immunization. These methods should be established and rehearsed annually in preparation for a pandemic.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".