MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2327419643 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofu052.372

664Influenza Vaccination in Chronically Ill Children: Taking a Closer Look at LAIV

2014· article· en· W2327419643 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanna Merckx, Monique Landry, Louise Valiquette, Deirdre McCormack, Caroline Quach

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)Montreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationPediatricsLive attenuated influenza vaccineIntensive care medicineVirologyInfluenza vaccine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Children with underlying chronic conditions are sub-optimally vaccinated against influenza, even if influenza vaccines (IV) are publicly funded. Since 2012, the province of Quebec has recommended live-attenuated IV (LAIV) as the preferred vaccine for children with non-immunocompromising conditions. For a second consecutive year, an influenza vaccination clinic was set up in our pediatric tertiary care hospital. We aimed to compare this clinic's results to last year's and evaluate patients' preference for LAIV vs trivalent inactivated IV (TIV). Methods. Between October 15 and December 24 of each year (2012 and 2013), a vaccination clinic was opened weekdays during working hours and staffed with vaccine nurses. TIV and LAIV were available. Parents were asked to fill a pre-piloted questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used. Results. During both years, we reached 630 patients with chronic illnesses accounting for 9% of the total outpatient visits for that time of year. In 2013, 264 (44%) were between 2 and 9 years, 257 (43%) were aged 9 to 18 years and 75 (13%) of vaccinated patients were immunosuppressed. Of the 623 participants for whom the information was available, 378 (61%) had received their IV in the previous year and in 49% (172/348), had received it in our vaccination clinic. For 122 of 603 parents who answered (20%), the presence of this vaccination clinic was instrumental in their child receiving their IV. In 2012, 437 of 588 patients aged 2 years and over (74%) were vaccinated with LAIV, compared to 348 of 512 (68%) this year (p = 0.02). These represented 79% of LAIV eligible children (n = 442). Of 360 patients previously vaccinated, 103 (29%) had received LAIV the year before and 88% chose to be vaccinated again with LAIV this year. LAIV was preferred by caregivers (n = 341) because it was perceived as less painful (49%), no needle was involved (41%) and in 42% because of their physician's recommendation. Additionally, 487 household members were vaccinated in 2013. Conclusion. Yearly influenza vaccination coverage in children with chronic illnesses can be improved with a vaccination clinic on site at a tertiary centre. Household members are also reached through this strategy. When LAIV is not contra-indicated, it remains caregivers' and patients' preferred vaccine. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases→Same topicRespiratory viral infections research→French-language works237,207→