MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415242918 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-24865-9

Self-reported poliomyelitis vaccination and documentation in adults indicates high uptake: a digital German epidemic panel, December 2024

2025· article· en· W4415242918 on OpenAlexaff
Robyn Kettlitz, Manuela Harries, Sebastián Contreras, Thomas von Lengerke, Stefanie Castell, Berit Lange, Carolina Judith Klett-Tammen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Immunology Research
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanPoliomyelitisBiostatisticsDocumentationEpidemiologyVaccinationPublic healthCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: On 12 December 2024, the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommended universal polio catch-up vaccination for children and adolescents up to 16, urging parents to check their children's immunization status following detections of vaccine-derived poliovirus in wastewater. The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) also advised healthcare professionals to ensure vaccination coverage in priority groups. Regional health authorities, called on all citizens to review their vaccination records to address any immunization gaps. We investigated vaccine uptake (documented / recalled) to improve estimates of immunity against poliovirus among the German population and gain insights into the proportion of undocumented vaccines. METHODS: We conducted a survey in December 2024 using the eResearch System PIA (Prospective Monitoring and Management-App) to collect data on self-reported vaccine uptake among a German cohort. We calculated the frequency of vaccinations that were documented and undocumented, as well as the types of vaccines and the number of doses received. Vaccination status was classified as received ≤ 2 doses versus ≥ 3 doses of any polio-containing vaccine. We applied survey weights to calculate frequencies according the general German population (by age, sex, region) and logistic regression to examine the relationships between the vaccinations that were not documented but recalled, and the factors associated with these undocumented vaccinations. RESULTS: Among 1,124 participants who completed the survey on vaccination uptake, 1,097 (96.9%) participants stated to have a vaccination record. A total of 823/1,124 (74.3%) reported having a vaccination record, where at least one poliomyelitis vaccine was documented, whereas 233 (19.0%) participants recalled at least one poliomyelitis vaccination without documentation or vaccination record. Of 1,124, 68 participants (6.7%) did not report any polio vaccination neither documented nor recalled without documentation. Among the 823 participants with documented vaccination and at least one vaccination, 592 (75.1%) received at least three doses of a poliomyelitis vaccine, with a decline in older age groups, less than three doses were reported by 164 (17.6%), and the remaining 7.3% (n = 67) did not have information on the number of doses administered. Of 2,768 documented vaccine doses, 898 (29.9%) were oral poliovirus vaccines (OPV) and 704 (26.2%) were inactivated poliovirus vaccines (IPV). In 1,166 vaccines (43.9%), the type could not be derived by the participants from the vaccination record. The odds of having a recalled vaccination (not documented) was higher in male and the older age groups compared to females and younger participants. DISCUSSION: We found similar poliomyelitis vaccination uptake compared to other data sources e.g., of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). Vaccine-derived immunity to poliomyelitis may be underestimated based on vaccination records only. There is a need to address potential gaps in health literacy and vaccination documentation. Efforts should be made to conduct continuous seroprevalence surveys in the population in response to emerging public health threats and deduce parameters to inform modelling infection dynamics in specific outbreak scenarios. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PCR-4-ALL cohort was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on the 3rd of September 2024 (DRKS00034763).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.346 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicViral Infections and Immunology Research→French-language works237,207→