Distinguishing Causation from Correlation in the Use of Correlates of Protection to Evaluate and Develop Influenza Vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing attention to the need to identify new immune markers for the evaluation of existing and new influenza vaccines. Immune markers that could predict individual protection against infection and disease, commonly called correlates of protection (CoPs), play an important role in vaccine development and licensing. Here, we discuss the epidemiologic considerations when evaluating immune markers as potential CoPs for influenza vaccines and emphasize the distinction between correlation and causation. While an immune marker that correlates well with protection from infection can be used as a predictor of vaccine efficacy, it should be distinguished from an immune marker that plays a mechanistic role in conferring protection against a clinical endpoint-the latter might be a more reliable predictor of vaccine efficacy and a more appropriate target for rational vaccine design. To clearly distinguish mechanistic and nonmechanistic CoPs, we suggest using the term "correlates of protection" for nonmechanistic CoPs, and ''mediators of protection'' for mechanistic CoPs. Furthermore, because the interactions among and relative importance of correlates or mediators of protection can vary according to age or prior vaccine experience, the effect sizes and thresholds for protective effects for CoPs could also vary in different segments of the 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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".