Assessing Effectiveness of Ring Vaccination in Mitigating a Mumps Outbreak on a College Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Mumps outbreaks continue to occur in populations that share close social networks. Ring vaccination is a strategy that focuses on vaccinating primary contacts and secondary contacts of an infected individual. While a third dose of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during outbreaks, there are limited studies focusing on the effectiveness of ring vaccination. Methods & Materials: In spring 2019, during a mumps outbreak at a large urban university where two documented doses of MMR are required for matriculation, ring vaccination was used as the university's primary strategy. To assess the effectiveness, this study compared the attack rates between primary and secondary contacts who had only two doses of documented MMR vaccine and contacts who were ring vaccinated and received a third MMR vaccine. Surveillance and contact tracing efforts during the outbreak were also reviewed. Results: A total of 26 case investigations resulted in 1419 primary and secondary contacts. The attack rate for contacts who had only two documented doses of the MMR vaccine was over three times higher than the attack rate for contacts who were ring vaccinated and received a third dose of MMR vaccine at least two weeks before developing mumps infection (20 per 1000 cases versus 6 per 1000 cases, respectively; p = 0.02). Conclusion: The rate of infection was significantly lower in ring vaccinated contacts Guidelines that recommend ring vaccination may help prevent larger mumps outbreaks in colleges. Requiring MMR documentation at colleges and universities, using rigorous contact tracing, and targeting outreach messaging can be tools to supplement ring vaccination.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".