COMPARATIVE DYNAMICS OF MONOVALENT AND BIVALENT VACCINATION FOR IMMUNOLOGICALLY UNRELATED PATHOGENS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multivalent vaccines are designed to immunize against two or more pathogens in a single dose vaccination. A challenge for wide spread use of these vaccines is their lower protection efficacy compared to monovalent vaccines that immunize individuals against a single pathogen. We sought, for the first time, to evaluate the outcomes of bivalent and monovalent vaccines in terms of the reduction in the number of infections over time. For this evaluation, we developed epidemiological models governing the transmission dynamics of two immunologically unrelated pathogens, where immunity conferred by vaccination or natural infection of one pathogen does not provide any cross-protection against the other pathogen. We assumed that a monovalent vaccine provides full, but temporary, protection against a particular pathogen. While protecting against both pathogens requires two pathogen-specific monovalent vaccines, a single dose of the bivalent vaccine provides partial protection against both pathogens. We analyzed the two models to investigate the impact of vaccination. In addition to examining global behaviors and disease persistence of the models, we performed simulations to show the existence of a biologically feasible region for the bivalent vaccine to outperform monovalent vaccines for prevention of disease transmission using a lower number of vaccines.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it