MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949910570 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v45i06a02

Should individuals use influenza vaccine effectiveness studies to inform their decision to get vaccinated?

2019· article· en· W2949910570 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Linlu Zhao, R. Ferguson Stirling, K. C. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsInfluenza vaccineAffect (linguistics)VaccinationSeasonal influenzaMedicineRisk perceptionPublic healthEnvironmental healthImmunologyPerceptionDiseasePsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)NursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine can affect an individual's perception of the ability of this vaccine to protect against influenza. However, vaccine effectiveness studies are designed to inform public health decisions rather than for individual decision-making. This overview explains what vaccine effectiveness means and why vaccine effectiveness estimates can vary. Individual variation in the response to seasonal influenza vaccine is based upon risk factors such as age, underlying health conditions, immune status and risk of infection and complications. Therefore, an individual's decision to get vaccinated should be primarily informed by their risk of influenza illness and their risk of transmitting influenza to vulnerable people.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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