MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962522858 · doi:10.1097/inf.0000000000002398

Narcolepsy and Pandemic Influenza Vaccination

2019· review· en· W2962522858 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn M. Edwards, Paul‐Henri Lambert, Steven Black

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarcolepsyPandemicMedicineVaccinationInfluenza vaccineVirologyImmunologyReactogenicityImmune systemCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunizationDiseaseInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the initial identification of the H1N1 pandemic influenza strain in Mexico in April 2009 and its subsequent global spread, several monovalent influenza vaccines were developed as part of the pandemic response. Three of these vaccines, Pandemrix, Arepanrix and Focetria were adjuvanted. One of these, the AS03-adjuvanted Pandemrix vaccine, was primarily used in Europe. Following widespread Pandemrix vaccine administration in Scandinavia, an increased risk of narcolepsy was noted in observational studies. Subsequently, this increased risk was also reported in other European countries as well. In contrast, studies from Canada of a similar AS03-adjuvanted vaccine, Arepanrix, did not demonstrate a similar increased risk of narcolepsy. No studies have identified an increased risk of narcolepsy following the MF59-adjuvanted Focetria vaccine. For many potential pandemic influenza strains, adjuvants might be required to solicit a protective immune response. Thus, it is critical that we understand the nature of the association between adjuvanted vaccine receipt and narcolepsy. Here, we present a potential hypothesis for narcolepsy seen during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in AS03-adjuvanted influenza vaccine recipients.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Pediatric Infectious Disease JournalSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207