MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177526435 · doi:10.1101/2021.07.01.21259870

Evaluation of the United States COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation Strategy

2021· preprint· en· W3177526435 on OpenAlexaff
Md Rafiul Islam, Tamer Oraby, Audrey McCombs, Mohammad Mihrab Chowdhury, Mohammed Al-Mamun, Michael G. Tyshenko, Claus Kadelka

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationPopulationPrioritizationEconomic shortageMedicineDemographyPandemicEnvironmental healthDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyBusinessInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anticipating an initial shortage of vaccines for COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States developed priority vaccine allocations for specific demographic groups in the population. This study evaluates the performance of the CDC vaccine allocation strategy with respect to multiple potentially competing vaccination goals (minimizing mortality, cases, infections, and years of life lost (YLL)), under the same framework as the CDC allocation: four priority vaccination groups and population demographics stratified by age, comorbidities, occupation and living condition (congested or non-congested). Methods We developed a compartmental disease model that incorporates key elements of the current pandemic including age-varying susceptibility to infection, age-varying clinical fraction, an active case-count dependent social distancing level, and time-varying infectivity (accounting for the emergence of more infectious virus strains). Under this model, the CDC allocation strategy is compared to all other possibly optimal allocations that stagger vaccine roll-out in up to four phases (17.5 million strategies). Results The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all vaccination goals but never optimally. Under the developed model, the CDC allocation deviated from the optimal allocations by small amounts, with 0.19% more deaths, 4.0% more cases, 4.07% more infections, and 0.97% higher YLL, than the respective optimal strategies. The CDC decision to not prioritize the vaccination of individuals under the age of 16 was optimal, as was the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers. Finally, a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes compared to the CDC allocation. Interpretation The developed approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States, or adapted for use by other countries seeking to optimize the effectiveness of their vaccine allocation strategies. Funding The authors received no funding for this work. Research in context Evidence before this study The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prioritized population groups for vaccination based on available scientific evidence, the feasibility of different implementation strategies, and ethical considerations. We searched PubMed using the query “(((COVID) AND (vaccin*)) AND (model)) AND ((priorit*) OR alloc*)” up to June 15, 2021, with no date or language restrictions. The search identified 190 articles, of which 15 used predictive models to evaluate the efficacy of vaccine allocation strategies in achieving vaccination campaign goals such as reducing mortality or incidence. All studies compared only a small number of specific, expertise-based allocations. Most studies stratified the population by age, while some considered additional characteristics such as occupation or comorbidity status, but none took into account all characteristics included in the CDC vaccine prioritizations. Added value of this study We developed a compartmental disease model that takes into account several important components of the COVID-19 pandemic, and stratifies the U.S. population by all characteristics included in the CDC vaccine prioritization recommendations. In a novel global optimization approach, we compared the CDC recommendations to all potentially optimal strategies (17.5 million strategies) that also stagger the vaccine roll-out in four phases. The CDC allocation strategy performed well in all considered outcome measures, but never optimally; a higher prioritization of individuals with comorbidities in all age groups improved outcomes. The CDC decision to initially not vaccinate children, as well as the prioritization of health-care workers and other essential workers over non-essential workers proved optimal under all outcome measures. Implications of all the available evidence Our study identifies and compares the optimal vaccine allocation strategies for several competing vaccination goals. The developed global optimization approach can be used to inform the design of future vaccine allocation strategies in the United States and elsewhere.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207