MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015519064 · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110265

Modeling the waning and boosting of immunity from infection or vaccination

2020· article· en· W3015519064 on OpenAlexafffund
Rose‐Marie Carlsson, Lauren M. Childs, Zhilan Feng, John W. Glasser, Jane M. Heffernan, Jing Li, Gergely Röst

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYork UniversityNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Institute of MathematicsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineImmunityImmunologyPediatricsImmunizationBooster (rocketry)DiseaseHerd immunityPopulationImmune systemDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immunity following natural infection or immunization may wane, increasing susceptibility to infection with time since infection or vaccination. Symptoms, and concomitantly infectiousness, depend on residual immunity. We quantify these phenomena in a model population composed of individuals whose susceptibility, infectiousness, and symptoms all vary with immune status. We also model age, which affects contact, vaccination and possibly waning rates. The resurgences of pertussis that have been observed wherever effective vaccination programs have reduced typical disease among young children follow from these processes. As one example, we compare simulations with the experience of Sweden following resumption of pertussis vaccination after the hiatus from 1979 to 1996, reproducing the observations leading health authorities to introduce booster doses among school-aged children and adolescents in 2007 and 2014, respectively. Because pertussis comprises a spectrum of symptoms, only the most severe of which are medically attended, accurate models are needed to design optimal vaccination programs where surveillance is less effective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical BiologySame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207