MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395006520 · doi:10.1111/irv.13288

Relative Effectiveness of the MF59®‐Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine Versus High‐Dose and Non‐Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccines in Preventing Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations During the 2019–2020 US Influenza Season

2024· article· en· W4395006520 on OpenAlexaff
Mahrukh Imran, Joan Puig‐Barberà, Justin R. Ortiz, Lorena López-González, Alex Dean, Machaon Bonafede, Mendel Haag

Bibliographic record

VenueInfluenza and Other Respiratory Viruses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
FundersSeqirus
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessVaccinationInfluenza vaccineLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineMedical recordImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Adults ≥ 65 years of age have suboptimal influenza vaccination responses compared to younger adults due to age‐related immunosenescence. Two vaccines were specifically developed to enhance protection: MF59‐adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aIIV3) and high‐dose egg‐based trivalent influenza vaccine (HD‐IIV3e). Methods In a retrospective cohort study conducted using US electronic medical records linked to claims data during the 2019–2020 influenza season, we compared the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of aIIV3 with HD‐IIV3e and a standard‐dose non‐adjuvanted egg‐based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4e) for the prevention of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, including influenza hospitalizations. We evaluated outcomes in the “any” diagnosis position and the “admitting” position on the claim. A doubly robust methodology using inverse probability of treatment weighting and logistic regression was used to adjust for covariate imbalance. rVE was calculated as 100 * (1 − OR adjusted ). Results The study included 4,299,594 adults ≥ 65 years of age who received aIIV3, HD‐IIV3e, or IIV4e. Overall, aIIV3 was associated with lower proportions of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations with diagnoses in any position compared to HD‐IIV3e (rVE = 3.9% [95% CI, 2.7–5.0]) or IIV4e (9.0% [95% CI, 7.7–10.4]). Specifically, aIIV3 was more effective compared with HD‐IIV3e and IIV4e in preventing influenza hospitalizations (HD‐IIV3e: 9.7% [95% CI, 1.9–17.0]; IIV4e: 25.3% [95% CI, 17.7–32.2]). Consistent trends were observed for admitting diagnoses. Conclusion Relative to both HD‐IIV3e and IIV4e, aIIV3 provided improved protection from cardiorespiratory or influenza hospitalizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfluenza and Other Respiratory VirusesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207