Discussing the need for an adolescent hepatitis B vaccine booster in infant vaccinees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian provinces were pioneers in establishing school-based HB vaccination programs, with British Columbia leading the way in 1992 (1). Ample evidence confirms that recombinant HB vaccine induces a robust, long-lasting immune response in preadolescents. A remarkable prospective study conducted in Quebec City (2) monitored anti-HB surface antigen titres for 15 years after routine vaccination of eight- to 10-year-olds. The seropositivity rate (titre ≥10 IU/L) was 98.9% at series completion and 76.7% 15 years later. Virtually all of those who were seronegative after 15 years responded strongly to a booster dose, indicating persistence of immune memory. The capacity to recall an antibody response following exposure to HB virus is considered to be sufficient to protect against symptomatic disease because the long incubation period of this infection allows time for a recalled immune response to neutralize infection at an early stage. This is consistent with the observation of a 90% decline in the rate of acute HB infection among Canadians 10 to 19 years of age between 1990 and 2008 (3). Based on similar observations from around the world, no booster vaccination is currently recommended following primary HB vaccination (4). Whether protection will last life-long will require prolonged follow-up studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
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".