MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2884987631 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v41is3a04

Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization’s Statement on re-immunization with polysaccharide 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine

2015· article· en· W2884987631 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Caroline Quach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePneumococcal conjugate vaccineBooster doseImmunizationVaccinationPneumococcal vaccinePediatricsPopulationAdvisory committeeConjugate vaccinePneumococcal polysaccharide vaccineBooster (rocketry)ImmunologyPneumococcal diseaseStreptococcus pneumoniaeImmune systemEnvironmental healthAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Individuals who are 2 years of age and over and at high risk for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) (defined as those with functional or anatomic asplenia or sickle cell disease; hepatic cirrhosis; chronic renal failure or nephrotic syndrome; HIV infection; and immunosuppression related to disease or therapy) are recommended to receive one lifetime booster dose of polysaccharide 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine (Pneu-P-23) vaccine, in addition to age- and risk-specific recommendations for the conjugate 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine (Pneu-C-13). Adults aged 65 years and over are also considered at high risk for invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal time between initial vaccination with Pneu-P-23 and subsequent booster doses to protect against IPD in those at high risk for IPD. METHODS: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) conducted a systematic review of the literature on booster doses of pneumococcal vaccine for individuals at high risk for IPD disease. NACI reviewed the evidence considering the target population, safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, effectiveness of the vaccines, vaccine schedules, and other aspects of the overall immunization strategy, and then approved three specific recommendations. RESULTS: For all individuals aged 2 years and over who are at high risk for IPD and who have received a dose of Pneu-P-23, re-vaccination with a second dose of Pneu-P-23 should be provided five years after the initial dose of Pneu-P-23. They should also have previously received age-appropriate doses of 13-valent conjugate pneumococcal vaccine. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the optimal timing and number of Pneu-P-23 boosters in high-risk adults. One lifetime booster of Pneu-P-23 is currently recommended for individuals at high risk for IPD, five years after the previous dose. Given the increased risk of IPD in adults aged 65 years and older and the rapid decline in antibodies following Pneu-P-23, all individuals should receive one dose of Pneu-P-23 at age 65 years-as long as five years have passed since the previous Pneu-P-23 dose. No additional booster dose is currently recommended for this age group, if they have no medical conditions that put them at high risk for IPD. CONCLUSION: in the near future.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.009

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease Report→Same topicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections→French-language works237,207→