MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408626238 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2025.2477965

Joint consensus on reducing the burden of invasive meningococcal disease in the Asia-Pacific region

2025· review· en· W4408626238 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Liu, Maria Gonzales, Wai Hung Chan, Iqbal Memon, Anggraini Alam, Hyunju Lee, Hetti Wickramasinghe, Rajeshwar Dayal, Michael Levin, Yhu-Chering Huang, Jim Buttery, Anna Lisa Ong‐Lim, Mike Yat Wah Kwan

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBurden of diseaseMeningococcal diseaseGeographyEnvironmental healthNeisseria meningitidisPopulationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) imposes a heavy burden of mortality and life-long sequelae on infected individuals and has devastating impacts on their family members. International data show that meningococcal vaccination programs have reduced IMD incidence and changed the serogroup distribution of the disease. Furthermore, newer data show that although the public health measures in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic temporarily reduced the incidence of IMD, there has been a resurgence in the years since. In the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, many countries do not include meningococcal vaccines in their routine vaccination programs, and approaches to IMD surveillance are inconsistent. This review summarizes recent data and consensus statements from a group of experts from selected APAC countries on the burden of IMD in the region, evidence for vaccination, and how barriers to IMD vaccination may be addressed.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207