MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acellular vaccines for preventing whooping cough in children

2011· reference-entry· en· W4236892650 on OpenAlexaff
Linjie Zhang, Sílvio OM Prietsch, Inge Axelsson, Scott A. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2011
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWhooping coughBordetella pertussisAdverse effectClinical trialVaccine efficacyPertussis vaccineCochrane LibraryPediatricsRandomized controlled trialVaccinationInternal medicineImmunologyImmunizationAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Routine use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines was suspended in some countries in the 1970s/1980s because of concerns about adverse effects. There was a resurgence of whooping cough. Acellular pertussis vaccines (containing purified or recombinant Bordetella pertussis antigens) were developed in the hope that they would be as effective but less reactogenic than the whole-cell vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of acellular pertussis vaccines in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to April week 2 2009) and EMBASE (1974 to April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind randomised efficacy and safety trials of acellular pertussis vaccines in children up to six years old, with active follow-up of participants and laboratory verification of pertussis cases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and study quality assessment. Differences in trial design precluded pooling of the efficacy data. The safety data from individual trials were pooled using the Cochrane statistical package Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS: Six efficacy trials and 52 safety trials were included. The efficacy of multi-component (≥ 3) vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough, and from 71% to 78% in preventing mild pertussis disease. In contrast, the efficacy of one- and two-component vaccines varied from 59% to 75% against typical whooping cough, and from 13% to 54% against mild pertussis disease. Multi-component acellular vaccines is more effective than low-efficacy whole-cell vaccines, but may be less effective than the highest-efficacy whole-cell vaccines. Most systemic and local adverse events were significantly less common with acellular than with whole-cell pertussis vaccines for the primary series as well as for the booster dose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multi-component acellular pertussis vaccines are effective, and show less adverse effects than whole-cell pertussis vaccines for the primary series as well as for booster doses.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207