MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2223227459 · doi:10.1586/14760584.2016.1138861

Childhood and adolescent influenza vaccination in Europe: A review of current policies and recommendations for the future

2016· review· en· W2223227459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alistair McGuire, Mike Drummond, Sam Keeping

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsVaccinationVaccination policyMedicineTransmission (telecommunications)Age groupsEnvironmental healthSeasonal influenzaDiseaseBurden of diseaseDisease burdenPediatricsImmunologyDemographyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children and adolescents experience some of the highest rates of influenza infection and the subsequent burden on both infected children and their parents/carers is substantial. Vaccinating children and adolescents against seasonal influenza has the potential to reduce the burden of disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals due to the pivotal role that younger age groups play in the transmission of infection. While countries such as the USA, Canada and the UK have consequently recommended the universal vaccination of children, the vast majority of European countries have not yet extended their vaccination policies to this age group. This review examines the rationale for childhood and adolescent vaccination against seasonal influenza and reviews current vaccination policies in Europe. We discuss key policy considerations for European countries that must be considered when extending vaccination programmes to younger age groups alongside recommendations for European policy makers based on our findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207