MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508622627 · doi:10.7717/peerj.2337

Evaluation of outbreak response immunization in the control of pertussis using agent-based modeling

2016· article· en· W2508622627 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexander Doroshenko, Weicheng Qian, Nathaniel Osgood

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakImmunizationVaccinationMedicineHerd immunityTransmission (telecommunications)Cumulative incidenceEnvironmental healthImmunologyVirologyCohortAntibodyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pertussis control remains a challenge due to recently observed effects of waning immunity to acellular vaccine and suboptimal vaccine coverage. Multiple outbreaks have been reported in different ages worldwide. For certain outbreaks, public health authorities can launch an outbreak response immunization (ORI) campaign to control pertussis spread. We investigated effects of an outbreak response immunization targeting young adolescents in averting pertussis cases. METHODS: We developed an agent-based model for pertussis transmission representing disease mechanism, waning immunity, vaccination schedule and pathogen transmission in a spatially-explicit 500,000-person contact network representing a typical Canadian Public Health district. Parameters were derived from literature and calibration. We used published cumulative incidence and dose-specific vaccine coverage to calibrate the model's epidemiological curves. We endogenized outbreak response by defining thresholds to trigger simulated immunization campaigns in the 10-14 age group offering 80% coverage. We ran paired simulations with and without outbreak response immunization and included those resulting in a single ORI within a 10-year span. We calculated the number of cases averted attributable to outbreak immunization campaign in all ages, in the 10-14 age group and in infants. The count of cases averted were tested using Mann-Whitney U test to determine statistical significance. Numbers needed to vaccinate during immunization campaign to prevent a single case in respective age groups were derived from the model. We varied adult vaccine coverage, waning immunity parameters, immunization campaign eligibility and tested stronger vaccination boosting effect in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: 189 qualified paired-runs were analyzed. On average, ORI was triggered every 26 years. On a per-run basis, there were an average of 124, 243 and 429 pertussis cases averted across all age groups within 1, 3 and 10 years of a campaign, respectively. During the same time periods, 53, 96, and 163 cases were averted in the 10-14 age group, and 6, 11, 20 in infants under 1 (p < 0.001, all groups). Numbers needed to vaccinate ranged from 49 to 221, from 130 to 519 and from 1,031 to 4,903 for all ages, the 10-14 age group and for infants, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses resulted in minimal impact on a number of cases averted. DISCUSSION: Our model generated 30 years of longitudinal data to evaluate effects of outbreak response immunization in a controlled study. Immunization campaign implemented as an outbreak response measure among adolescents may confer benefits across all ages accruing over a 10-year period. Our inference is dependent on having an outbreak of significant magnitude affecting predominantly the selected age and achieving a comprehensive vaccine coverage during the campaign. Economic evaluations and comparisons with other control measures can add to conclusions generated by our work.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207