(CAEFISS) Annual report for vaccines administered in 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To describe the adverse event following immunization (AEFI) reporting profile for vaccines administered in Canada during 2012 and surveillance trends relative to reports for vaccines administered from 2005 through 2011.Methods: Analysis of data based on AEFI reports received by the Public Health Agency of Canada by April 30, 2013, for vaccines marketed in Canada and administered from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2012.Results: The AEFI reporting rate was 10.1 per 100,000 population in Canada for vaccines administered in 2012 and was inversely proportional to age.There was a trend of declining rates from 2005 (14.8) to 2012 overall and by age group.The vast majority of reports (94%-95%) were non-serious involving reactions at or near the vaccination site, rash and febrile events.Conclusion: Canada has a strong pharmacovigilance system for vaccines with one of the highest AEFI reporting rates in developed countries.Vaccines marketed in Canada have a very good safety profile.This report enables comparisons across jurisdictions in Canada and globally. Rash onlyGeneralized, localized, or location not specified Other events specified on the CAEFISS report form Arthritis Hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode (HHE) Intussusception Paraesthesia/Anaesthesia Parotitis Persistent crying Thrombocytopenia Systemic events not specified on the CAEFISS report form Fever alone Infection Influenza-like illness Other general symptom(s) Rash with fever and/or other illness Syndrome Vaccination anxiety-related events (no subtype) Miscellaneous other events Gastrointestinal disorders Vaccine failure Other events Vaccination error without an associated AEFI (no subtype)Table 2: Severity classification for primary adverse event following immunization (AEFI) in the Medical Case Review Severity Criteria Serious Fatal outcome Results in hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization for ≥24 hours Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity Congenital anomaly or birth defect Life-threatening High impact Results in hospitalization for <24 hours Requires medically supervised observation outside of hospital Requires ≥3 separate physician assessments during acute AEFI episode Requires outpatient intravenous therapy (e.g., for antibiotics or rehydration) Prevents performance of daily activities for ≥4 days Moderate impact Results in 1-2 unscheduled urgent or non-urgent physician assessments Requires emergency medical services to come to immunization clinic Results in a new drug prescription or increased dose of an existing drug Prevents performance of daily activities for 1 to 3 days Low impact Requires treatment limited to immunization clinic setting by on-site staff Requires health professional advice/reassurance without a scheduled visit Requires non-prescription medication for symptomatic relief Prevents performance of daily activities for <24 hours No discernible impact Key definitionsAn adverse event following immunization (AEFI) is "any untoward medical occurrence which follows immunization and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the usage of the vaccine.The adverse event may be any unfavourable or unintended sign, abnormal laboratory finding, symptom or disease" (22).In 1994 the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use defined seriousness criteria for expedited reporting of AEFIs (23).A serious AEFI (SAE) is one that results in death, is life-threatening, requires in-patient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect (23).Expedited reporting is defined as no later than 15 calendar days after initial recognition of the AEFI and preferably as soon as possible.At PHAC, all SAE reports are reviewed by a physician.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".