MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766960916 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2017.1398872

Feasibility of a cluster-randomized influenza vaccination trial in U.S. nursing homes: Lessons learned

2017· article· en· W2766960916 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Gravenstein, H. Edward Davidson, Lisa Han, Jessica Ogarek, Roshani Dahal, Pedro Gozalo, Monica Taljaard, Vincent Mor

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSanofi Pasteur
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialVaccinationMedicineCluster (spacecraft)NursingCluster randomised controlled trialSeasonal influenzaNursing homesFamily medicineVirologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influenza severity increases and vaccine effectiveness decreases with age. High-dose influenza vaccine (HD) with quadruple the antigen of standard-dose (SD) vaccine is more efficacious in community-dwelling persons 65 years and older. We evaluated the feasibility of recruiting and randomizing Medicare certified nursing homes (NHs) for a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial comparing HD vs. SD (NCT1720277). Residents were long-stay and at least 65 years old. NH leadership agreed to standard of care random assignment with HD (Fluzone® High-Dose) or SD (Fluzone®) influenza vaccine for their facility for the 2012-2013 influenza season. We used Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 and Vital Status records for pre-specified clinical outcomes: 1) all-cause hospitalization, 2) NH mortality, and 3) functional decline. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed at the resident-level using Cox proportional hazards, multivariable Poisson, and logistic regression models accounting for clustering by facility. We randomized 39 NHs (19 SD and 20 HD), coordinated vaccine delivery, implemented web-based data collection, and accessed MDS data, demonstrating feasibility. There were 2,957 eligible residents (SD 1496; HD 1461); characteristics were similar between groups. A total of 301 (20.1%) of SD and 197 (13.5%) of HD allocated residents were ever hospitalized, (adjusted relative risk 0.680; 95% CI: 0.537, 0.862; p = 0.001). NH mortality was 274 (18.3%) SD vs. 249 (17.1%) HD, adjusted relative risk 0.834; 95% CI: 0.678, 1.027; p = 0.087). There were no differences in decline in functional status (13.4 vs. 13.8%, adjusted relative risk 0.994; 95% CI: 0.774,1.278; p = 0.965). We demonstrate that a pragmatic large-scale trial is feasible in a NH setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207