Summary of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Statement for 2025–2026
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) reviews the evolving evidence on influenza immunization and provides annual recommendations regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines.The NACI Statement on seasonal influenza vaccines for 2025-2026 updates the NACI recommendations from the previous year.Objective: To summarize the 2025-2026 NACI seasonal influenza vaccine recommendations and to highlight new and updated information.Methods: For the development of the Statement on seasonal influenza vaccines for 2025-2026, the NACI Influenza Working Group applied the NACI evidence-based process to assess available evidence and formulate recommendations.These recommendations were evaluated and approved by NACI based on the available evidence.Results: Key updates for the 2025-2026 influenza season include: 1) removal of the preferential recommendation for quadrivalent influenza vaccines in children; 2) reiteration of the safety of concurrent administration of seasonal influenza vaccines and other vaccines, including COVID-19, based on updated evidence; 3) new evidence on the protective effects of influenza vaccination on cardiovascular events; 4) updated language for Indigenous populations; and 5) addition of individuals at higher risk of avian influenza A(H5N1) exposure as a group for whom influenza vaccination is particularly important.Conclusion: NACI recommends that seasonal influenza vaccine should be offered annually to anyone six months of age and older who does not have a contraindication to the vaccine.Influenza vaccination is particularly important for people at high risk of influenza-related complications or hospitalization, people capable of transmitting influenza to those at high risk, and others as outlined in the Statement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.017 |
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".