Polio Eradication or Comeback? Outcome Reporting Bias in the 1954 Poliomyelitis Vaccine Field Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent wastewater testing suggests the poliovirus is reemerging, raising questions about the efficacy of the current inactivated polio vaccine and mass vaccination to eradicate poliomyelitis. The present study reassessed reported outcomes from the placebo-control study of the 1954 Salk inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine field trial, which studied a population of 1,829,916 U.S. school children from the first three grades. The placebo-control study of the trial reported that the polio vaccine was 80% to 90% effective in reducing cases of laboratory confirmed paralytic poliomyelitis, 60% to 70% effective against type 1 of the virus, and greater than 90% effective against types 2 and 3 of the poliovirus. However, these outcomes are reported as relative risk reductions, and the absolute risk reductions of the 1954 polio vaccine field trial were never reported to the public. The present paper’s analysis reveals to the public for the first time that the inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine's absolute risk reduction of laboratory confirmed paralytic poliomyelitis in the placebo-control study is 0.01% to 0.02%, an extraordinarily low clinical effect that impugns the Salk polio vaccine’s reported effectiveness. Furthermore, absolute risk reductions for the three poliovirus types are 0.01%, 0.00%, and 0.01%, respectively. Outcome reporting bias in the 1954 inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine field trial casts doubt on eradication of the poliovirus through mass 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 | 0.673 | 0.784 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".