MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198207396 · doi:10.1542/neo.22-9-e570

Vaccination of Pregnant Women Against COVID-19

2021· article· en· W3198207396 on OpenAlexaff
Bahaa Abu-Raya

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoReviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Impact on Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReactogenicityVaccinationPregnancyPandemicContext (archaeology)ImmunityImmunologyImmunogenicityHerd immunityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseasePediatricsObstetricsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Immune systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe morbidity and mortality following infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), leading some countries to recommend vaccination of pregnant women against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These recommendations are based on studies conducted early in the pandemic, and thus, the pregnant women in these studies most likely did not have pre-existing immunity to SARS-CoV-2 at the time of infection. The susceptibility of pregnant women and their infants to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of infection may be attenuated as the pandemic progresses and an increasing number of women will have pre-existing immunity (following natural infection or vaccination prior to pregnancy) during pregnancy. The reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines administered in pregnancy may also be affected by the pre-existing immunity of pregnant women. Maternal vaccine trials should be evaluated in the context of their timing in the pandemic and interpreted based on the pre-existing immunity of pregnant women.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoReviewsSame topicCOVID-19 Impact on ReproductionFrench-language works237,207