MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387151458 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad584

Single-dose Effectiveness of Mpox Vaccine in Quebec, Canada: Test-negative Design With and Without Adjustment for Self-reported Exposure Risk

2023· article· en· W4387151458 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nicholas Brousseau, Sara Carazo, Yossi Febriani, Lauriane Padet, Sandrine Hegg-Deloye, Geneviève Cadieux, Geneviève Bergeron, Judith Fafard, Hugues Charest, Gilles Lambert, Denis Talbot, Jean Longtin, Alexandre Dumont-Blais, Steve Bastien, Virginie Dalpé, Pierre-Henri Minot, Gaston De Serres, Danuta M. Skowronski

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersMinistère de la SantéFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociaux
KeywordsMedicineTest (biology)Environmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During the 2022 mpox outbreak, the province of Quebec, Canada, prioritized first doses for pre-exposure vaccination of people at high mpox risk, delaying second doses due to limited supply. We estimated single-dose mpox vaccine effectiveness (VE) adjusting for virus exposure risk based only on surrogate indicators available within administrative databases (eg, clinical record of sexually transmitted infections) or supplemented by self-reported risk factor information (eg, sexual contacts). METHODS: We conducted a test-negative case-control study between 19 June and 24 September 2022. Information from administrative databases was supplemented by questionnaire collection of self-reported risk factors specific to the 3-week period before testing. Two study populations were assessed: all within the administrative databases (All-Admin) and the subset completing the questionnaire (Sub-Quest). Logistic regression models adjusted for age, calendar-time and exposure-risk, the latter based on administrative indicators only (All-Admin and Sub-Quest) or with questionnaire supplementation (Sub-Quest). RESULTS: There were 532 All-Admin participants, of which 199 (37%) belonged to Sub-Quest. With exposure-risk adjustment based only on administrative indicators, single-dose VE estimates were similar among All-Admin and Sub-Quest populations at 35% (95% confidence interval [CI]:-2 to 59) and 30% (95% CI:-38 to 64), respectively. With adjustment supplemented by questionnaire information, the Sub-Quest VE estimate increased to 65% (95% CI:1-87), with overlapping confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Using only administrative data, we estimate one vaccine dose reduced the mpox risk by about one-third; whereas, additionally adjusting for self-reported risk factor information revealed greater vaccine benefit, with one dose instead estimated to reduce the mpox risk by about two-thirds. Inadequate exposure-risk adjustment may substantially under-estimate mpox VE.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207