Systematic review of meningococcal carriage by age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To estimate the age-specific prevalence of meningococcal carriage, quantify the variation in prevalence and explore reasons for heterogeneity. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of meningococcal carriage studies published between 1970-2007. Papers in any language reporting on ≥100 individuals were included; studies in settings not comparable to the UK were excluded. References of relevant papers were hand searched. We used mixed-effects logistic regression using splines to model carriage prevalence as a function of age, as this relationship is known to be non-linear. Results: Results presented here are based on 66 papers reporting European studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. 12 papers included longitudinal studies of carriage, which were analysed separately. After controlling for country and study as random effects, background disease level (endemic/increased incidence), setting (civilian/hospital/military/mixed) and decade of the study were independently associated with carriage prevalence by age (likelihood-ratio test p
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 | 0.013 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".