Anaphylaxis following quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007, Australia implemented the National human papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Program, which provides quadrivalent HPV vaccine free to all women aged 12-26 years. Following notification of 7 presumptive cases of anaphylaxis in the state of New South Wales, Australia, we verified cases and compared the incidence of anaphylaxis following HPV vaccination to other vaccines in comparable settings. METHODS: We contacted all patients with suspected anaphylaxis and obtained detailed histories from telephone interviews and a review of medical records. A multidisciplinary team determined whether each suspected case met the standardized Brighton definition. Some participants also received skin-prick allergy testing for common antigens and components of the HPV vaccine. RESULTS: Of 12 suspected cases, 8 were classified as anaphylaxis. Of these, 4 participants had negative skin-prick test results for intradermal Gardasil. From the 269 680 HPV vaccine doses administered in schools, 7 cases of anaphylaxis were identified, which represents an incidence rate of 2.6 per 100 000 doses (95% CI 1.0-5.3 per 100 000). In comparison, the rate of identified anaphylaxis was 0.1 per 100 000 doses (95% CI 0.003-0.7) for conjugated meningococcal C vaccination in a 2003 school-based program. INTERPRETATION: Based on the number of confirmed cases, the estimated rate of anaphylaxis following quadrivalent HPV vaccine was significantly higher than identified in comparable school-based delivery of other vaccines. However, overall rates were very low and managed appropriately with no serious sequelae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 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 teacher head, 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".