MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206579104 · doi:10.1128/mbio.03789-21

Vaccinating Children against COVID-19: Commentary and Mathematical Modeling

2022· article· en· W4206579104 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Hawkes, Michael F. Good

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPublic healthMedicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthPediatricsFamily medicineVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Countries have recently begun implementation of childhood vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in children 5 to 11 years of age. Because SARS-CoV-2 disease severity is remarkably age dependent, vaccinating children may have modest public health benefits, relative to the unequivocal benefit of vaccinating vulnerable older adults. Furthermore, vaccinating children to "altruistically" increase herd immunity should be considered from an ethical as well as a public health perspective. An additional question is related to global social justice: should priority be given to vaccinating children in high-income settings while older adult populations in low-resource settings have limited access to vaccine? To address the risks and benefits of childhood vaccination, we provide a balanced commentary, supported by a mathematical epidemiological model, using Australia and Alberta, Canada, as case studies. We give highlights of the modeling findings in the commentary and include details in the supplemental materials for interested readers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207