Safety of Maternal Immunization Against Pertussis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WHO recommends vaccination of all children against pertussis. However, newborn infants remain vulnerable to infection. Pertussis vaccination during pregnancy has been introduced in several countries to protect newborns via transplacental transfer of maternal pertussis antibodies to the infant. We reviewed the impact of maternal pertussis vaccination on the health of pregnant women, the developing fetus, and health of the newborn. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest, and Science Direct to identify studies that assessed the safety of maternal pertussis vaccination. Twenty-seven English language publications published between January 1995 and December 2018 were included in this review. Pregnant women receiving pertussis vaccines did not have increased rates of systemic or local reactions. There were no safety concerns with repeat vaccination with other tetanus-containing vaccines or their concomitant administration with influenza vaccines. Maternal pertussis vaccination did not adversely affect pregnancy, birth or neonatal outcomes. This review confirms the safety of maternal pertussis vaccination during pregnancy. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur. Plain language summary available for this article.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".