MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404364900 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.13.24317259

Trends in childhood vaccination coverage in the European Union, 1980–2024: between long-term increases and recent decreases

2024· preprint· en· W4404364900 on OpenAlexaff
FA Causio, L Villani, M Mariani, R Pastorino, Chiara de Waure, W Ricciardi, Maria Grazia Bocci

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionVaccinationPolitical scienceVirologyMedicineInternational tradeEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Vaccination is among the most effective public health interventions, yet vaccine hesitancy in the European Union (EU) has driven declining coverage and resurgences of vaccine-preventable diseases. Trend assessments are essential for informing strategies to maintain high coverage levels. Methods We analysed WHO/UNICEF Estimates of National Immunization Coverage data (as of September 2025) for 27 EU countries from 1980 to 2024. Coverage for seven first-year antigens (DTP-3, HEPB-3, HIB-3, POL-3, PCV-3, MCV-1, RCV-1) was evaluated using joinpoint regression for Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) overall and recent Annual Percent Change (APC) shifts. Findings Of 183 country-vaccine trends, 128 showed positive AAPCs but recent APCs indicated predominant declines (110 negative evolutions). In 2024, only 71 combinations reached ≥95% coverage; Luxembourg achieved this for all antigens. Seventeen countries (e.g., Germany, Romania) had declines in ≥4 vaccines, especially HIB-3, POL-3, and DTP-3. Interpretation Despite long-term gains, recent EU-wide coverage declines signal urgent risks to herd immunity. National and community actions are needed to reverse trends. Funding None.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts→French-language works237,207→