Bibliographic record
Abstract
# Vaccine is available in Latin America {#article-title-2} EDITOR—I read with interest the editorial by Pollard and Begg.1 For eight years, a vaccine for serogroup meningococcus B has been available in Latin America. This vaccine is produced in Cuba, and, although it may not be perfect, it has shown immunogenicity. The statement that there is no vaccine is incorrect. I would like to know whether Pollard and Begg are aware of this but think it is not a recommended vaccine, or if they are not aware of it. 1. 1.↵1. Pollard AJ, 2. Begg N . Meningococcal disease and healthcare workers. BMJ 1999; 319: 1147–1148. (30 October.) [OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] # Prophylaxis is not necessary {#article-title-4} EDITOR—Traditionally, Monday mornings are depressing times for medical microbiologists. Until now, this has largely been a result of the handful of new cases of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus discovered over the preceding weekend. In November, however, my usual gloom was turned to despair by a flurry of telephone calls from colleagues in various states of panic demanding prophylaxis for meningococcal disease. I am a consultant microbiologist and infection control doctor, and it has taken me a long time to convince healthcare workers at my trust that antimeningococcal prophylaxis is not necessary for healthcare workers, including ambulance crews, after nursing a patient with meningococcal disease. The only exception to this rule is after mouth to mouth resuscitation. Pollard and Begg in their editorial are advising that antibiotics should be offered to healthcare workers with direct exposure to potentially infected secretions, despite their own assertions that few published reports exist of healthcare workers or laboratory staff developing invasive meningococcal disease.1 This advice seems to be based on a single case of a paediatrician in France, who developed meningococcaemia after intubating a child with meningococcal disease.2 I do not know whether or not a causal link was proved in this case. Such advice is contrary to national guidance.3 Furthermore, the risks of antibiotic chemoprophylaxis are not adequately covered in … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.stitle%253DBMJ%26rft.issn%253D0007-1447%26rft.aulast%253DPollard%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BJ%26rft.volume%253D319%26rft.issue%253D7218%26rft.spage%253D1147%26rft.epage%253D1148%26rft.atitle%253DMeningococcal%2Bdisease%2Band%2Bhealthcare%2Bworkers%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10541486%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=319/7218/1147&atom=%2Fbmj%2F320%2F7229%2F247.atom
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".