MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949700995 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v45i06a01

Summary of the NACI Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Statement for 2019–2020

2019· article· en· W2949700995 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Linlu Zhao, K. C. Young, Ian Gemmill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersHealth CanadaCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCanadian Armed ForcesAssociation of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaIndigenous Services CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsLive attenuated influenza vaccineSeasonal influenzaImmunogenicityMedicineImmunizationInfluenza vaccineVirologyVirusTrivalent influenza vaccineFamily medicineImmunologyAntigenInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many different influenza vaccines are authorized for use in Canada and new evidence on influenza and vaccines is continually emerging. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides annual recommendations regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) for the upcoming influenza season. OBJECTIVE: To summarize NACI recommendations regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines for the 2019-2020 influenza season, including conclusions from reviews of evidence on 1) a new split virus quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine and 2) the comparative effectiveness and immunogenicity of subunit and split virus inactivated influenza vaccines in adults 65 years of age and older. METHODS: For both topics, the NACI Influenza Working Group developed a predefined search strategy to identify all eligible studies, assessed their quality, summarized and analyzed the findings and, according to the NACI evidence-based process, proposed recommendations and identified the grade of evidence that supported them. In light of the evidence, the recommendations were then considered and approved by NACI. RESULTS: NACI concluded that the new split virus quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine has a safety and immunogenicity profile comparable to the quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines already authorized for adults and children 5 years of age and older (Grade B Evidence). Therefore, NACI recommended that this new vaccine may be considered among the quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccines offered to adults and children five years of age and older (Discretionary NACI Recommendation). However, NACI concluded that the evidence is not sufficient (Grade I Evidence) to support specific recommendations on the differential use of subunit and split virus inactivated influenza vaccines in adults 65 years of age and older. CONCLUSION: NACI continues to recommend that an age-appropriate influenza vaccine should be offered annually to anyone six months of age and older who does not have contraindications to the vaccine, with focus on the groups for whom influenza vaccination is particularly recommended. This includes people at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization, people capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk, people who provide essential community services and people in direct contact with poultry infected with avian influenza during culling operations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207