MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902197269 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofy210.2107

2454. Pertussis Vaccine Effectiveness and Waning Immunity in Alberta, Canada: 2004–2015

2018· article· en· W2902197269 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher Bell, Steven J. Drews, Kimberley Simmonds, Lawrence W. Svenson, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Kevin L. Schwartz, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Salaheddin M. Mahmud, Margaret L. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthGovernment of AlbertaUniversity of ManitobaMinistry of HealthUniversity of AlbertaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationBordetella pertussisOdds ratioConfidence intervalPertussis vaccineIncidence (geometry)PediatricsLogistic regressionVaccination scheduleImmunizationDemographyImmunologyInternal medicineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite childhood vaccination coverage rates exceeding 75%, pertussis is still frequently reported in Canada. In Alberta, pertussis incidence ranged from 1.8 to 20.5 cases per 100,000 persons for 2004–2015. Most cases occurred in those aged < 15 years. We investigated pertussis vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a test-negative designed (TND) study. All individuals who had undergone a real-time PCR laboratory test for Bordetella pertussis between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2015, in the province of Alberta, Canada were included. Vaccination history was obtained from Alberta’s immunization repository. Vaccination status was classified as complete, incomplete, or not vaccinated, based on the province’s vaccination schedule. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for pertussis infection by time since last vaccination, comparing those with complete or incomplete vaccination to those not vaccinated. We adjusted for age, sex, income, urban/rural status, and the presence of a co-morbid condition. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as [(1-aOR)*100]. Of 28,154 individuals tested, 2,297 (12.3%) tested positive for B. pertussis. Among those with complete vs. no vaccination, VE was 88% (95% CI 85–91%) at 1 year, 83% (95% CI 79–86%) at 1 to 3 years, 70% (95% CI 63–76%) at 4 to 6 years, 28% (95% CI 12–42%) at 7 to 9 years, and -4% (95% CI -53 to 29%) at 10 or more years since a last dose of a pertussis vaccine (Figure 1). VE was similar but attenuated in the incompletely vaccinated group, with a comparable waning of immunity. Pertussis VE was high in the first year after vaccination, then declined noticeably after 5 years. Our results suggest there is a large number of adolescents and adults susceptible to pertussis. Regular boosters throughout childhood, adolescence, and during pregnancy are critical to protect those at greatest risk of infection and complications. Further validation of the strengths and weaknesses of the TND for assessing pertussis VE is needed. Pertussis VE by year since last vaccination in those with complete vaccination status. M. L. Russell, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.: Grant Investigator and Unconditional Research Grant, Grant recipient. Merck Frosst Canada Inc.: Grant Investigator and Unconditional Research Grant, Grant recipient.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207