MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289304442 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1011575

Pertussis models to inform vaccine policy

2015· review· en· W2289304442 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia T. Campbell, James M. McCaw, Jodie McVernon

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationPublic healthEpidemiologyEnvironmental healthMedicineRobustness (evolution)DiseasePopulationInfectious disease (medical specialty)ImmunologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pertussis remains a challenging public health problem with many aspects of infection, disease and immunity poorly understood. Initially controlled by mass vaccination, pertussis resurgence has occurred in some countries with well-established vaccination programs, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Several studies have used mathematical models to investigate drivers of pertussis epidemiology and predict the likely impact of different vaccination strategies. We reviewed a number of these models to evaluate their suitability to answer questions of public health importance regarding optimal vaccine scheduling. We critically discuss the approaches adopted and the impact of chosen model structures and assumptions on study conclusions. Common limitations were a lack of contemporary, population relevant data for parameterization and a limited understanding of the relationship between infection and disease. We make recommendations for future model development and suggest epidemiologic data collections that would facilitate efforts to reduce uncertainty and improve the robustness of model-derived conclusions.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.374
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.124 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207