MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399356490 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2024.2351675

The economic rationale for cell-based influenza vaccines in children and adults: A review of cost-effectiveness analyses

2024· review· en· W4399356490 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Fisman, Norberto Giglio, Myron J. Levin, Van Hung Nguyen, Stephen I. Pelton, Maarten J. Postma, Jesús Ruiz-Aragón, Analía Urueña, J Mould-Quevedo

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersSeqirus
KeywordsSeasonal influenzaMedicineInfluenza vaccineCost effectivenessNarrative reviewImmunologyVaccinationLive attenuated influenza vaccineEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal influenza significantly affects both health and economic costs in children and adults. This narrative review summarizes published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of cell-based influenza vaccines in children and adults <65 years of age, critically assesses the assumptions and approaches used in these analyses, and considers the role of cell-based influenza vaccines for children and adults. CEAs from multiple countries demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIVc) compared with egg-based trivalent/quadrivalent influenza vaccines (TIVe/QIVe). CEA findings were consistent across models relying on different relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) estimate inputs, with the rVE of QIVc versus QIVe ranging from 8.1% to 36.2% in favor of QIVc. Across multiple scenarios and types of analyses, QIVc was consistently cost-effective compared with QIVe, including in children and adults across different regions of the world.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207