[Evidence summary:] How safe and effective are COVID 19 vaccines in adolescents, and what is the uptake of COVID 19 vaccines in adolescents? [v1.0]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Main Points \n1. Authorization of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID 19 \nvaccine for adolescents is based on an ongoin g \ncli nical trial that reports 100% vaccine efficacy \nagainst SARS CoV 2 infection from 7 days after \nthe second dose , and immunogenicity and \nadverse effect profiles comparable to those in \nthe adult population. No vaccine related severe \nadverse events have been observed \n2. Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following \nmRNA vaccination in children and adolescents \nare rare and typically resolve rapidly \n3. Based on cross sectional studies in Canada, \nIsrael and Italy, intention to vaccinate children \nand adolescents against COVID 19 is high \n(~ 90 Obtaining reliable information \nabout adolescent COVID 19 vaccine safety a nd \nefficacy , and having parents or guardians who \nhave been vaccinated are among the factors that \ninc rease vaccination intent among both parents \nand adolescents. Parents inc lined not to \nvaccinate indicate short development time and \npossible long term effect s as dissuading factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".