MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206606196 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.05.22268820

Vaccinating children against COVID-19: commentary and mathematical modelling

2022· preprint· en· W4206606196 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Hawkes, Michael F. Good

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)Women and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthVaccinationPerspective (graphical)EpidemiologyLicensureCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunizationMedicineInequalityEnvironmental healthDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)ImmunologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the recent licensure of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 in the 5-11 year old age group, the public health impact of a childhood immunization campaign is of interest. Using a mathematical epidemiological model, we project that childhood vaccination carries minimal risk and yields modest public health benefits. These include large relative reductions in child morbidity and mortality, although the absolute reduction is small because these events are rare. Furthermore, the model predicts “altruistic” absolute reductions in adult cases, hospitalizations, and mortality. However, vaccinating children to benefit adults should be considered from an ethical as well as a public health perspective. From a global health perspective, an additional ethical consideration is the justice of giving priority to children in high-income settings at low risk of severe disease while vaccines have not been made available to vulnerable adults in low-income settings.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→