Best of intent, worst of both worlds: why sequentially combining epidemiological designs does not improve signal detection in vaccine safety surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Vaccine safety surveillance commonly includes a serial testing approach with a sensitive method for “signal generation” and specific method for “signal validation.” Whether serially combining epidemiological designs improves both sensitivity and specificity is unknown. Methods We assessed the overall performance of serial testing using three administrative claims and one electronic health record database. We compared Type I and II errors before and after empirical calibration for historical comparator, SCCS, and the serial combination of those designs against six vaccine exposure groups with 93 negative control and 279 imputed positive control outcomes. Results Historical comparator mostly had lower Type II error than SCCS. SCCS had lower Type I error than the historical comparator. Before empirical calibration, serial combination increased specificity and decreased sensitivity. Type II errors mostly exceeded 50%. After empirical calibration, Type I errors returned to nominal; sensitivity was lowest when the methods were combined. Conclusion We recommend against the serial approach in vaccine safety surveillance. While serial combination produced fewer false positive signals compared to the most specific method, it generated more false negative signals compared to the most sensitive method. Using the noisy historical comparator in front of SCCS deteriorated overall performance in evaluating safety signals. Key Messages Using the serial approach in vaccine safety surveillance did not improve overall performance: specificity increased but sensitivity decreased. Without empirical calibration, Type II errors exceeded 50%; after empirical calibration, Type I error rates returned to nominal with negligible change to Type II error rates. While prior research has suggested high sensitivity of the historical comparator method in distinguishing true safety signals, there were cases when self-controlled case series was more sensitive. Vaccine safety surveillance is becoming increasingly important, so monitoring systems should closely consider the utility and sequence of epidemiological designs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.320 | 0.549 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".