MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199076229 · doi:10.1186/s12979-021-00248-7

Validation of the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults in “real-world” settings

2021· editorial· en· W3199076229 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunity & Ageing · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakImmunologyImmunityAntibody responseVirologyIntensive care medicineAntibodyImmune systemDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapidity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination around the world has substantially reduced the number of new cases of COVID-19 and their severity in highly vaccinated countries. The unanticipated efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults has been very encouraging but the longevity of vaccine immunity is currently unknown and protection against emerging variants may be lower. Adoptive immunotherapy with neutralizing mAb may offer an alternative for poor vaccine responders, while the mechanisms underlying failure to respond are still unclear. Further studies of B and T cell responses and their regulation particularly in older populations will provide a more solid foundation to develop suitable approaches to optimize vaccine responses of older adults who fail to mount a durable response.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.333 · 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