The effectiveness of shingles vaccine among Albertans aged 50 years or older: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the effectiveness of shingles vaccine in preventing incident shingles among Alberta residents aged 50 years or older over the period 2009 - 2015, using administrative health data. METHODS: The cohort comprised of Albertans from the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan Registry (AHCIP) as of June 30, 2009 and aged 50 years or older. Those who received shingles vaccine were identified from the provincial pharmaceutical information network. The occurrence of incident shingles was identified through both inpatient and outpatients/community care data. Incident shingles was defined as the earliest dated record of ICD 9-CM 053 or ICD-10-CA B02. Starting on November 1, 2009, individuals with no history of shingles or shingles vaccination were followed until Nov 1, 2015 (6 years), or until shingles incidence, death, or AHCIP cancellation (including leaving Alberta). Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was estimated as the inverse of the relative risk of developing incident shingles in each year following vaccination compared to time at risk without vaccination, while adjusting for age, sex, income quintile, and immune compromising conditions (identified from physician claims, inpatient, and cancer registry data). RESULTS: There were 1,094,236 individuals in the cohort, with 85,439 (7.80%) vaccinated individuals. The shingles incidence rate was 9.03 [95% CI: 8.95, 9.11] cases per 1,000 person years (49,243 cases). Adjusted VE in the first year following immunization was 50.02% [95% CI: 44.71%, 54.83%] against incident shingles, decreasing to no effect by the fifth year (VE = 14.00% [95% CI: -20.99%, 38.88%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with observations from other population based studies and provide population level data for policy-makers to review when making decisions related to public funding of shingles vaccine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".