The impact of rare but severe vaccine adverse events on behaviour-disease dynamics: a network model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The propagation of rumours about rare but severe adverse vaccination or infection events through social networks can strongly impact vaccination uptake. Here we model a coupled behaviour-disease system where individual risk perception regarding vaccines and infection are shaped by their personal experiences and the experiences of others. Information about vaccines and infection either propagates through the network or becomes available through globally available sources. Dynamics are studied on a range of network types. Individuals choose to vaccinate according to their personal perception of risk and information about infection prevalence. We study events ranging from common and mild, to severe and rare. We find that vaccine and infection adverse events have asymmetric impacts. Vaccine (but not infection) adverse events may significantly prolong the tail of an outbreak. Similarly, introducing a small risk of a vaccine adverse event may cause a steep decline in vaccine coverage, especially on scale-free networks. Global dissemination of information about infection prevalence boosts vaccine coverage more than local dissemination. Taken together, these findings highlight the dangers associated with vaccine rumour propagation through scale-free networks such as those exhibited by online social media, as well as the benefits of disseminating public health information through mass media.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".