MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793017596 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v43i05a04

Summary of the NACI Update on the Recommended Use of Hepatitis B Vaccine

2017· article· en· W2793017596 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Brandon Michael Henry, O Baclic

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersCanadian Armed ForcesHealth CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAssociation of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineImmunizationVaccinationHepatitis B vaccineImmunogenicityPopulationHepatitis BBooster doseAdvisory committeePediatricsBooster (rocketry)EpidemiologyFamily medicineImmunologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineImmune systemHepatitis B virusPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infant and adolescent hepatitis B (HB) immunization programs have been successfully implemented in all Canadian provinces and territories since the 1990s. Following the introduction of universal immunization programs, the incidence of HB has decreased in all age groups. However, the duration of protection against chronic infection, as measured by preserved T- and B-cell memory, remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on long-term protection against HB in adolescents who received routine immunization in infancy, determine the level of risk of HB infection in Canadians with diabetes and assess the timing of re-vaccination of individuals with immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Hepatitis Working Group reviewed key questions and performed an evidence review and synthesis. In consideration of the burden of illness to be prevented, the target population and issues related to safety, immunogenicity, efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine, the group proposed recommendations for vaccine use to NACI. All evidence was rated and summarized in tables. NACI approved specific evidence-based recommendations and elucidated the rationale and relevant considerations in the Statement update. RESULTS: In addition to the epidemiological data assessment, NACI reviewed evidence from efficacy and effectiveness studies with up to 30 years of follow-up data as well as data from 39 publications on immune response following the administration of a HB booster dose in individuals who were immunized as infants. Based on the conducted review, NACI did not find evidence that would support a change to its current recommendation that there is no need for routine booster immunization of individuals immunized in infancy and that there is no evidence to support preferential immunization schedules or routine immunization of individuals with diabetes. CONCLUSION: NACI now recommends that following immunization of immunocompromised individuals, initial annual monitoring of HB antibody levels may be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207