Monitoring signals for vaccine safety: the assessment of individual adverse event reports by an expert advisory committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring vaccine safety is a complex and shared responsibility. It can be carried out in many ways, one of which is the reporting of individual cases of adverse reactions thought to be due to vaccination. The task is difficult because ascribing causality to an individual case report is fraught with challenges. A standardized evaluation instrument - known as the causality assessment form - was therefore developed for use by an expert advisory committee to facilitate the process. By following the several sections in this form, the members of the committee are taken through series of points to establish causality. These points include the basic criteria for causation such as biological plausibility, the time elapsed between the vaccine administration and the onset of the adverse event, and whether other factors (drugs, chemicals or underlying disease) could account for the adverse symptoms. The form concludes with consensus assessment of causality, a commentary about the assessment, and advice for further study or follow-up. This method of assessing the more serious cases of adverse reaction reported to vaccination has proven useful in evaluating ongoing safety of vaccines in Canada. Through analyses such as this, new signals can be identified and investigated further.
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 | 0.343 | 0.498 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".