Case–control study of household contacts to examine immunological protection from<i>Bordetella pertussis</i>transmission — study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is mounting evidence that the recent resurgence of pertussis in many countries is in part related to the acellular vaccine, which has been administered in Canada since 1997. This vaccine elicits a different cell-mediated immune response than the previously used whole-cell vaccine, and its effectiveness wanes over time. The aim of this study is to understand the immunological, demographic and clinical factors that mediate protection from pertussis on exposure. Methods: This is a household case-control study protocol. Following notification of an index case in a household, a study team will conduct a home visit to collect data and biological specimens. The study team will return to the household 8 weeks from the onset of illness in the index case. The Th1, Th2 and Th17 responses, cytokine expression, IgG subclass, blood cell counts and presence of Bordetella pertussis will be determined. We will use laboratory and statistical analyses to determine immunological differences between contacts who are infected with B. pertussis and contacts who remain healthy, and to determine which clinical and demographic covariates are associated with a reduced risk of infection. Interpretation: The results of this study will be essential for understanding the immune response required for protection from infection with B. pertussis and will contribute to our understanding of the shortcomings of the current 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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".