Proportional of wheezing events in asthmatic children post-vaccination of annual flu vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The common childhood chronic disease asthma causes hospitalisation and exacerbations due to respiratory tract viral infections like influenza. Due to uncertainty about the benefits and role of influenza vaccines in preventing asthma exacerbations, many children with asthma do not receive them, despite recommendations from organisations like the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunisation. There are two main types of influenza vaccines: intramuscular trivalent inactivated and intranasal cold-adapted, live attenuated. Both vaccines are highly immunogenic and induce an adequate immune response, but their clinical efficacy varies by season and age. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of increased wheeze rates in stable asthmatic children who received the annual flu vaccine, compared to a control group of asthmatic children who did not receive the vaccine. Methods: A retrospective study at the Queen Rania Abdullah for Children Hospital in Amman, Jordan, examined the vaccination status of 200 asthmatic children aged 3-14. The study focused on recurrent wheezing episodes and the minimum 12-month period between the last annual flu vaccination and asthmatic exacerbation. The study excluded uncontrolled or partially controlled patients for the past 12 months. Data was collected from demographic information, vaccination history, and past wheezing episodes. The children were divided into two groups, one without the flu vaccine and the other with the flu vaccine. A comprehensive questionnaire was used to assess sociodemographic and disease-related factors. If children received the vaccination as per the National Vaccination Schedule, their vaccination status was considered complete. Results: A study of 200 asthmatic children in Jordan found that 35% did not receive a flu vaccine, placing them in Group I. 65% had received a flu vaccine in the previous year. Males had higher distribution rates in both flu-based groups, with a statistically insignificant positive correlation. Age categories showed similar distribution rates, with 21.0% for 3-6 years, 34.0% for 6-9 years, 37.5% for 9-12 years, and 7.5% for 12-15 years. No significant correlation was found between receiving the flu vaccine and wheezing rates in the last seasonal year. Frequent wheezing episodes were higher in experienced groups than in naïve groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".