Evaluation of the decision-making process underlying the initial off-label use of vaccines: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This scoping review aimed to assess the non-standardized decision-making process of National or International Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAG) in developing novel off-label recommendations by examining the supportive evidence. METHODS: We used the Joanna Briggs Institute framework. A search strategy was developed with a librarian to identify recommendations and evidence from peer-reviewed and gray literature until January 2022, using PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, the International Clinical trials registry, governmental agency and pharmaceutical websites, the Global NITAG Network center website, and Google Scholar. Recommendations involving one of 26 pre-identified vaccine-preventable diseases, human use, and the introduction of a novel change across time and countries, were included. Evidence regarding efficacy/effectiveness, safety, or immunogenicity were included. Recommendations for fast-track approval, unlabeled or individual level off-label use, passive immunization, booster doses or provincial strategies were excluded. Only English and French documents were included. Two reviewers reviewed title/abstracts and full-text documents, and three performed data extraction. The primary outcome was the presence and elements of the evidence. FINDINGS: Out of 4023 documents, 12 were included, and 116 were found through manual search. Over the 40-year span captured (1982-2018), most recommendations were from the last two decades and included evidence, except three from the 1990s. Most included safety (69.2%) and immunogenicity (65.4%) studies and randomized controlled trials (57.7%). Indication-based recommendations included RCTs more often (84.6%) than posology-based recommendations (30.8%). There was evidence involving populations or vaccines different from those in the recommendation. INTERPRETATION: Critical outcomes evidence is not systematically included in off-label recommendations, nor must it involve the exact population or vaccine(s) of concern. However, in recent years, more off-label recommendations include critical outcome evidence, mainly RCTs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.288 | 0.566 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".