MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278347075 · doi:10.1177/1740774515625976

A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing relative effectiveness of two licensed influenza vaccines in US nursing homes: Design and rationale

2016· article· en· W2278347075 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Gravenstein, Roshani Dahal, Pedro Gozalo, H. Edward Davidson, Lisa Han, Monica Taljaard, Vincent Mor

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Trials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSanofi Pasteur
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialResearch designNursingFamily medicineStatisticsInternal medicineComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Influenza, the most important viral infection affecting older adults, produces a substantial burden in health care costs, morbidity, and mortality. Influenza vaccination remains the mainstay in prevention and is associated with reduced rates of hospitalization, stroke, heart attack, and death in non-institutional older adult populations. Influenza vaccination produces considerably lower antibody response in the elderly compared to young adults. Four-fold higher vaccine antigen (high-dose) than in the standard adult vaccine (standard-dose) elicits higher serum antibody levels and antibody response in ambulatory elderly. PURPOSE: To describe the design considerations of a large clinical trial of high-dose compared to standard-dose influenza vaccine in nursing homes and baseline characteristics of participating nursing homes and long-stay (more than 90 days) residents over 65 years of age. METHODS: The high-dose influenza vaccine intervention trial is multifacility, cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design that compares hospitalization rates, mortality, and functional decline among long-stay nursing home residents in facilities randomized to receive high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine and also randomized with or without free staff vaccines provided by study organizers. Enrollment focused on nursing homes with a large long-stay resident population over 65 years of age. The primary outcome is the resident-level incidence of hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of pulmonary and influenza-like illness, based upon Medicare inpatient hospitalization claims. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality based upon the vital status indicator in the Medicare Vital Status file, all-cause hospitalization directly from the nursing home Minimum Data Set discharge records, and the probability of declining at least 4 points on the 28-point Activities of Daily Living Scale. RESULTS: Between February and September 2013, the high-dose influenza vaccine trial recruited and randomized 823 nursing homes. The analysis sample includes 53,035 long-stay nursing home residents over 65 years of age, representing 57.7% of the participating facilities' population. Residents are mainly women (72.2%), white (75.5%), with a mean age of 83 years. Common conditions include hypertension (79.2%), depression (55.1%), and diabetes mellitus (34.4%). The prevalence of circulatory and pulmonary disorders includes heart failure (20.5%), stroke (20.1%), and asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (20.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This high-dose influenza vaccine trial uniquely offers a paradigm for future studies of clinical and programmatic interventions within the framework of efforts designed to test the impact of changes in usual treatment practices adopted by health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01815268.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TrialsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207