MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211150180 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2022.2035142

Resolving sex and gender bias in COVID-19 vaccines R&D and beyond

2022· article· en· W4211150180 on OpenAlexaff
Lavanya Vijayasingham, Shirin Heidari, J. A. Munro, Saad B. Omer, Noni E. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsFraming (construction)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)IntersectionalityEnforcementMen who have sex with menEquity (law)StakeholderInclusion (mineral)Political sciencePublic relationsDiseaseMedicineSociologyGeographyGender studiesInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of sex and gender in immune response and vaccine outcomes is established in many disease areas, including in COVID-19. Yet, there are notable gaps in the consideration of sex and gender in the analysis and reporting of COVID-19 vaccines clinical trial data. The push for stronger sex and gender integration in vaccines science should be championed by all researchers and stakeholders across the R&D and access ecosystem - not just gender experts. This requires joint action on the tactical framing of customized value propositions (based on stakeholder motivations), the stronger enforcement of existing regulation, tools, and commitments, and aligning the overall agenda to parallel calls on intersectionality, equity diversity and inclusion.

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)0.416
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.415
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4160.415
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207