Efficacy and Effectiveness of the PCV-10 and PCV-13 Vaccines Against Invasive Pneumococcal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) (pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate vaccine [PCV-13] and pneumococcal 10-valent conjugate vaccine [PCV-10]) are available for prevention of pneumococcal infections in children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of PCV-13 and PCV-10 in preventing invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and acute otitis media (AOM) in children <5 years. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and Cochrane. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies examined the direct effectiveness and/or efficacy of PCV-10 and PCV-13 in reducing the incidence of disease in healthy children <5 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and methodologic quality assessment. RESULTS: Significant effectiveness against vaccine-type IPD in children ≤5 years was reported for ≥1 dose of PCV-13 in the 3 + 1 (86%-96%) and 2 + 1 schedule (67.2%-86%) and for PCV-10 for the 3 + 1 (72.8%-100%) and 2 + 1 schedules (92%-97%). In children <12 months of age, PCV-13 VE against serotype 19A post-primary series was significant for the 3 + 1 but not the 2 + 1 schedule. PCV-10 crossprotection against 19A was significant in children ≤5 years with ≥1 dose (82.2% and 71%). Neither PCVs were found effective against serotype 3. PCV-13 was effective against AOM (86%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 61 to 94). PCV-10 was effective against clinically defined (26.9%; 95% CI: 5.9 to 43.3) and bacteriologically confirmed AOM (43.3%; 95% CI: 1.7 to 67.3). LIMITATIONS: Because of the large heterogeneity in studies, a meta-analysis for pooled estimates was not done. CONCLUSIONS: Both PCVs afford protection against pneumococcal infections, with PCV-10 protecting against 19A IPD, but this VE has not been verified in the youngest age groups.
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 | 0.023 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".