MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392281645 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v50i12a02

Canadian vaccine safety surveillance reports following immunization with seasonal influenza vaccines, 2021–2022

2024· article· en· W4392281645 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Elissa Giang, Yuhui Xu, Thivya Naganathan, Natalia Abraham, Marie‐Thérèse Bawolak, Battouli Said Salim, Ashley Weeks, Amanda Shaw, Susanna Ogunnaike-Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsImmunizationVirologySeasonal influenzaLive attenuated influenza vaccineInfluenza vaccineMedicineVaccine safetyVaccinationEnvironmental healthImmunologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)AntibodyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Seasonal influenza vaccines (SIV) authorized for use in Canada have all undergone rigorous regulatory assessments for safety and effectiveness. Serious adverse events following immunization (AEFI) can occur, though they are rare. Continuous safety surveillance of vaccines during the post-marketing phase is a critical component of vaccination programs. This enables the detection of rare, late onset, or unexpected adverse events. An updated safety summary following the introduction of any new vaccines and/or formulations to immunization programs is necessary for refining the risk-benefit profile of a specific vaccine and maintaining public confidence. Here we provide an updated safety summary for SIVs distributed during the 2021/2022 influenza season from AEFI reports submitted to the Canadian Adverse Event Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS) and the Canadian Vigilance Database (CVD). Methods: We searched CAEFISS and CVD for individuals who were vaccinated with a SIV between October 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, including median age of vaccinated individuals, vaccines co-administered with SIV, and the most frequently reported AEFIs. Crude AEFI reporting rates were calculated by severity of the AEFI report, and SIV-type using doses distributed data. Medical reviews were conducted for reports including death, serious events (or outcomes) after SIV were administered alone, and selected adverse events (i.e., anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, febrile seizures, oculo-respiratory syndrome). Disproportionality analysis was used to identify potential safety signals among SIV and AEFI pairs. Results: There were 448 AEFI reports, with most AEFI classified as non-serious events (84.2%). The majority of reports described vaccination in adults at least 65 years of age (38.6%). The most frequently reported AEFIs were vaccination site pain, urticaria, pyrexia and rash. Medical review of AEFI reports did not find any evidence that reported deaths were related to vaccination with SIV. Among serious reports, nervous system disorders were the most commonly reported medical conditions. A higher number of events related to vaccination errors were also identified using disproportionality analysis. Conclusion: Findings from our analysis of reports to CAEFISS and CVD following vaccination with SIV are consistent with the known safety profile of SIVs distributed during the 2021/2022 influenza season. The majority of reports were non-serious with the most common AEFI symptoms occurring at the vaccination site or systemic symptoms that were self-limiting. The majority of vaccination error reports involved the administration of the vaccine at an inappropriate site, although no serious AEFIs were reported.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207