A Call for Caution in Use of Pertussis Vaccine Effectiveness Studies to Estimate Waning Immunity: A Canadian Immunization Research Network Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies provide essential evidence on waning vaccine-derived immunity, a major threat to pertussis control. We evaluated how study design affects estimates by comparing 2 case-control studies conducted in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We compared results from a test-negative design (TND) with a frequency-matched design (FMD) case-control study using pertussis cases from 2005-2015. In the first study, we identified test-negative controls from the public health laboratory that diagnosed cases and, in the second, randomly selected controls from patients attending the same physicians that reported cases, frequency matched on age and year. We compared characteristics of cases and controls using standardized differences. RESULTS: In both designs, VE estimates for the early years postimmunization were consistent with clinical trials (TND, 84%; FMD, 89% at 1-3 years postvaccination) but diverged as time since last vaccination increased (TND, 41%; FMD, 74% by 8 years postvaccination). Overall, we observed lower VE and faster waning in the TND than the FMD. In the TND but not FMD, controls differed from cases in important confounders, being younger, having more comorbidities, and higher healthcare use. Differences between the controls of each design were greater than differences between cases. TND controls were more likely to be unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated than FMD controls (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The FMD adjusted better for healthcare-seeking behavior than the TND. Duration of protection from pertussis vaccines is unclear because estimates vary by study design. Caution should be exercised by experts, researchers, and decision makers when evaluating evidence on optimal timing of boosters.
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 | 0.575 | 0.711 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".