Non-inferiority of mammalian cell-derived quadrivalent subunit influenza virus vaccines compared to trivalent subunit influenza virus vaccines in healthy children: a phase III randomized, multicenter, double-blind clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The safety and immunogenicity of mammalian cell-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) as compared with trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV1c/TIV2c) was evaluated in children aged ≥4 to <18 years. METHODS: Two thousand three hundred and thirty-three subjects were randomized 2:1:1 to receive either one or two doses of study vaccine depending on previous vaccination status. Hemagglutination inhibition antibody responses for all four influenza strains were performed 3 weeks after the last dose. Reactogenicity and safety were also assessed (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01992107). RESULTS: QIVc met the non-inferiority criteria against all four vaccine strains and demonstrated superiority for both influenza B strains over the unmatched B lineage included in the comparator vaccines, when geometric mean titers and seroconversion rates were compared at 3 weeks after the last vaccination. Similar percentages of subjects experienced solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) across all subgroups. Unsolicited AEs, serious AEs, medically attended AEs, and new onset chronic disease were reported in comparable percentages of subjects in all study groups. No vaccine-related serious AEs or deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: QIVc demonstrated a similar safety profile and immunogenicity responses against all four vaccine strains without signs of immune interference on addition of an alternate lineage B strain compared with TIV1c/TIV2c and may provide broader protection against both influenza B lineages in children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".