MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214116781 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.08.21266072

Evaluating the impact of RSV immunisation strategies on antibiotic use in England

2021· preprint· en· W3214116781 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine E. Atkins, David Hodgson, Mark Jit, Nicholas G. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
KeywordsAntibioticsMedicinePrimary careIntensive care medicinePediatricsBiologyFamily medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With a sizable fraction of primary care antibiotics prescribing attributable to RSV, the promising suite of prophylactic pharmaceuticals against could reduce the need for antibiotics in addition to controlling respiratory disease. To assess the potential impact of RSV vaccines on the reduction in primary care antibiotic prescribing in England, we integrate results from a dynamic transmission model of RSV and a statistical attribution framework. Under base case assumptions, targeting children aged 5-14 years reduces antibiotic prescribing by 10.9 (8.0-14.2) antibiotic courses per 10,000 person years. This reduction in antibiotic use would gain 128 DALYs and avert 51,000 GBP associated with infections caused by drug resistant bacteria. Seasonally administering monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to high risk infants under 6 months is the most efficient strategy (reducing per person year antibiotic prescribing by 2.6 (1.9-3.3) antibiotic courses per 1,000 mAb courses).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.228
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicRespiratory viral infections research→French-language works237,207→