Improving surveillance of varicella in Europe in response to increasing availability of varicella vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Last week, the United Kingdom received its first licensed varicella (chickenpox) vaccine. Despite the availability of the new vaccine there are currently no plans to introduce it into the routine immunisation schedule in the UK (currently the vaccine is licensed only for susceptible individuals over the age of 12 years and younger individuals who may be in contact with high risk patients). Indeed, European countries have been slow to introduce widespread chickenpox vaccination, despite the apparent success of the programme in reducing chickenpox incidence in the United States (1). This may be due to a lack of perceived need for chickenpox vaccine among parents and healthcare professionals as observed in Canada, along with concerns regarding the safety of the vaccine when used in routine programmes (2). There are two safety concerns: first, that an inadequate chickenpox vaccination programme will lead to an increase in adult cases (which are generally more severe); and second, that vaccination will lead to an increase in zoster (shingles) in the medium term. What is the basis for these concerns and what surveillance data are available from countries that have introduced the vaccine (notably the US) that may shed light on these issues?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".