MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207607152 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000020

Vaccine rollout strategies: The case for vaccinating essential workers early

2021· article· en· W3207607152 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicola Mulberry, Paul Tupper, Erin Kirwin, Christopher McCabe, Caroline Colijn

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of AlbertaSimon Fraser University
FundersCanada Research ChairsGenome British ColumbiaGovernment of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of AlbertaAustralian GovernmentGenome Canada
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PopulationEnvironmental healthImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vaccination campaigns against COVID-19, many jurisdictions are using age-based rollout strategies, reflecting the much higher risk of severe outcomes of infection in older groups. In the wake of growing evidence that approved vaccines are effective at preventing not only adverse outcomes, but also infection, we show that such strategies are less effective than strategies that prioritize essential workers. This conclusion holds across numerous outcomes, including cases, hospitalizations, Long COVID (cases with symptoms lasting longer than 28 days), deaths and net monetary benefit. Our analysis holds in regions where the vaccine supply is limited, and rollout is prolonged for several months. In such a setting with a population of 5M, we estimate that vaccinating essential workers sooner prevents over 200,000 infections, over 600 deaths, and produces a net monetary benefit of over $500M.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations60
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207