MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2247622889 · doi:10.1155/2001/839183

The Role of the Aceullular Pertussis Vaccine and the Comeback of ′Pertussis Pete′?

2001· article· en· W2247622889 on OpenAlexaff
John Conly, Bree Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBordetella pertussisMedicineWhooping coughImmunologyPertussis vaccineVaccinationSerologyImmunityIncidence (geometry)PediatricsImmunizationAntigenImmune systemAntibodyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pertussis or whooping cough is an acute infectious disease of the respiratory tract caused principally by Bordetella pertussis and less commonly by Bordetella parapertussis (1). Until two decades ago, pertussis in adults was a medical curiosity (2‐4), but with the purification of specific Bordetella species antigens, the development of reliable enzyme immunoassays allowing accurate serological diagnosis and better understanding of the duration of immunity from vaccination, it has been clearly demonstrated that B pertussis is a common cause of prolonged cough in adults. Indeed, its incidence has been increasing gradually over the past decade in both adults and adolescents. Given the recognition of the importance of pertussis as a cause of prolonged cough in adults and the advent of the new acellular pertussis vaccines, it is timely to review current concepts of the pathogenesis of pertussis, its epidemiology in adults and the utility of the anticipated impact of the acellular vaccine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology→Same topicBacterial Infections and Vaccines→French-language works237,207→