[Evaluation on the safety and immunogenicity of Canada split influenza virus vaccine].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of Canada split influenza virus vaccine. METHODS: Cluster samples were by randomly chosen and divided into split vaccination group and homoimported influenza vaccination group. RESULTS: After injection, fever-reaction and local reaction rates of 'trial' group were found as 3.69% and 1.75% respectively, but no statistical significance was found when compared with 'control' group. However the antibody positive rates of 'trail' and 'control' groupsappeared statistically significant (H1N1: 96.8% vs. 92.3%, H3N2: 95.8% vs. 90.2%, B: 52.3% vs. 62.3%). For geometric mean titer (GMT) of type H1N1, H3H2 and B antibody, 'trial' group and 'control' group increased 22.4, 16.8, 8.2 and 21.2, 12.5 and 7.4 times respectively. The antibody protective rates of type H1N1, H3N2 and B were 99%, 99% and 53.9% for 'trial' group, and 96.2%, 98.4% and 62.3% for 'control' but with no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: Influenza split vaccine made in Shire company in Canada was safe and with good immunogenicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".