MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214494173 · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.142

Assessing the epidemiological and economic impact of alternative vaccination strategies: a modeling study

2022· article· en· W4214494173 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Kim, Saima Athar, Y. LI, S. Koumarianos, Ting-Hai Cheng, Leena Amiri, Wisdom S. Avusuglo, W.A. Woldegerima, Amadou Fall, Ava John‐Baptiste, Arnt Diener, Jiang Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidemiologyVaccinationEnvironmental healthMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Given limited supplies of vaccines, having information on the costs, and associated health and economic impacts, is important for the development of optimal vaccination strategies. This study explores the epidemiological and economic impact, in terms of the value of lost production, of four vaccination strategies – fixed-dose interval (M1), prioritization of the first dose (M2), screen and forego vaccine for those with COVID-19 infection history (M3), and prioritization of the first dose along with screen and forego vaccine for those with COVID-19 infection history(M4), under constraints limiting the daily vaccine supply. METHODS & MATERIALS: Using mathematical and statistical modelling, we quantified the number quarantined, hospitalization days, vaccine doses saved, and deaths averted, and production losses, for each strategy, in comparison to M1. The model parameters and initial conditions were based on Canadian data, and the simulation ran over 365 days starting from June 1, 2021. Sensitivity analyses explored how each strategy changes with different conditions of daily vaccine supply, the initial proportion recovered from COVID-19 infection, and initial coverage of the first dose. RESULTS: Strategy M2 results in a reduction of 67,130,775 doses of vaccine administered, 20 lives saved, and a reduction of $3.8 billion of lost production in comparison to M1. M3 does not save any vaccine dose administered, but results in 5 lives saved, and a reduction of $575,149 in lost production in comparison to strategy M1. Due to the large proportion of the Canadian population who have already received a first vaccine dose, no screening actually occurs under scenario M3 and the daily vaccine supply was used entirely to provide second doses. While M2 is the dominant strategy under the current Canadian setting, sensitivity analyses revealed that M3 dominates when the vaccine supply increased or when the initial recovered proportion from COVID-19 was large enough. CONCLUSION: The findings quantify the potential benefits of alternative vaccination strategies that can save lives and costs. Our study findings can help policymakers identify the optimal COVID-19 vaccination strategy and our study framework can be adapted to other settings.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207