↓ Skip to main content

Ontology-Based Combinatorial Comparative Analysis of Adverse Events Associated with Killed and Live Influenza Vaccines

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ontology-Based Combinatorial Comparative Analysis of Adverse Events Associated with Killed and Live Influenza Vaccines
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049941
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sirarat Sarntivijai, Zuoshuang Xiang, Kerby A. Shedden, Howard Markel, Gilbert S. Omenn, Brian D. Athey, Yongqun He

Abstract

Vaccine adverse events (VAEs) are adverse bodily changes occurring after vaccination. Understanding the adverse event (AE) profiles is a crucial step to identify serious AEs. Two different types of seasonal influenza vaccines have been used on the market: trivalent (killed) inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Different adverse event profiles induced by these two groups of seasonal influenza vaccines were studied based on the data drawn from the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Report System (VAERS). Extracted from VAERS were 37,621 AE reports for four TIVs (Afluria, Fluarix, Fluvirin, and Fluzone) and 3,707 AE reports for the only LAIV (FluMist). The AE report data were analyzed by a novel combinatorial, ontology-based detection of AE method (CODAE). CODAE detects AEs using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Chi-square significance test, and base level filtration, and groups identified AEs by ontology-based hierarchical classification. In total, 48 TIV-enriched and 68 LAIV-enriched AEs were identified (PRR>2, Chi-square score >4, and the number of cases >0.2% of total reports). These AE terms were classified using the Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE), MedDRA, and SNOMED-CT. The OAE method provided better classification results than the two other methods. Thirteen out of 48 TIV-enriched AEs were related to neurological and muscular processing such as paralysis, movement disorders, and muscular weakness. In contrast, 15 out of 68 LAIV-enriched AEs were associated with inflammatory response and respiratory system disorders. There were evidences of two severe adverse events (Guillain-Barre Syndrome and paralysis) present in TIV. Although these severe adverse events were at low incidence rate, they were found to be more significantly enriched in TIV-vaccinated patients than LAIV-vaccinated patients. Therefore, our novel combinatorial bioinformatics analysis discovered that LAIV had lower chance of inducing these two severe adverse events than TIV. In addition, our meta-analysis found that all previously reported positive correlation between GBS and influenza vaccine immunization were based on trivalent influenza vaccines instead of monovalent influenza vaccines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Computer Science 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,114,131
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#72,948
of 193,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,500
of 277,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,359
of 4,740 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,740 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.