Safety, immunogenicity, and tolerability of three influenza vaccines in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if newer influenza vaccines can safely improve seroprotection rates of older adults, we compared three licensed trivalent inactivated vaccines (TIVs) in a randomized, controlled trial with evaluator blinding. Participants were non-frail adults ≥ 65 y old, annually TIV-immunized. Study vaccines included intradermal (IDV), MF59-adjuvanted (ADV) and subunit (TIV) formulations of equal potency and strain composition. Blood was obtained before vaccination (V1) and 21 (V2) and 180 d (V3) afterward and tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. Safety diaries were completed daily by participants and specific tolerability questions were posed regarding injections and symptoms. In total, 911 participants were immunized and 887 (97.4%) completed V3. Groups had similar demographics. General symptom rates post-vaccination were similar among groups. Rates of injection site redness after IDV/ADV/TIV were 75%/13%/13% and rates of pain were 29%/38%/20%, respectively, but each vaccine was well tolerated, with symptoms causing little bother. Baseline antibody titers did not differ significantly among groups but B/Brisbane titers were too high for meaningful response assessments. At V2, seroprotection rates (HAI titer ≥ 40) were highest after ADV, the rate advantage over IDV and TIV being significant at 11.8% and 11.4% for H3N2 and 10.2% and 12.5% for H1N1, respectively. At day 180, seroprotection rates had declined ~25% and no longer differed significantly among groups. While IDV and TIV were also well tolerated, ADV induced modestly higher antibody titers in seniors to influenza A strains at 3 weeks but not 6 mo post-vaccination. Immune responses to IDV and TIV were similar in this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".