MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interim estimates of 2019/20 vaccine effectiveness during early-season co-circulation of influenza A and B viruses, Canada, February 2020

2020· article· en· W3007452704 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Danuta M. Skowronski, Macy Zou, Suzana Sabaiduc, Michelle Murti, Romy Olsha, James A. Dickinson, Jonathan B. Gubbay, Matthew A. Croxen, Hugues Charest, Agatha N. Jassem, Mel Krajden, Nathalie Bastien, Yan Li, Gaston De Serres

Bibliographic record

VenueEurosurveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecProvincial Laboratory of Public HealthUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease ControlPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersAlberta Precision LaboratoriesBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
KeywordsInterimConfidence intervalMedicineVirologyInfluenza vaccineInfluenza seasonHuman influenzaCirculation (fluid dynamics)VirusCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineGeographyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interim results from Canada's Sentinel Practitioner Surveillance Network show that during a season characterised by early co-circulation of influenza A and B viruses, the 2019/20 influenza vaccine has provided substantial protection against medically-attended influenza illness. Adjusted VE overall was 58% (95% confidence interval (CI): 47 to 66): 44% (95% CI: 26 to 58) for A(H1N1)pdm09, 62% (95% CI: 37 to 77) for A(H3N2) and 69% (95% CI: 57 to 77) for influenza B viruses, predominantly B/Victoria lineage.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurosurveillanceSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207