Reported orofacial adverse effects of COVID‐19 vaccines: The knowns and the unknowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adverse events associated with vaccine administration can manifest in the oral cavity and orofacial region. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the orofacial adverse effects of two recently authorised COVID-19 vaccines, namely BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. METHODS: Publicly available data on BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were accessed from the relevant regulatory authorities in the United States, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom. Both patient/recipient information and healthcare professional fact sheets for each of these drugs were manually searched to find their orofacial adverse effects. RESULTS: Adverse events affecting the orofacial region were reported for both vaccines. These were rare and included acute peripheral facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), facial swelling, and swelling of the lips, face or tongue associated with anaphylaxis. There was heterogeneity in the acknowledgement of vaccine-related adverse events in North America compared with Europe. CONCLUSION: Globally, there are inconsistencies in the description of adverse effects presenting in the orofacial region of the COVID-19 vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. We believe that awareness of these orofacial manifestations will improve recognition, management and reporting of vaccine-related adverse effects.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".