Older Adults Mount Less Durable Humoral Responses to Two Doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine but Strong Initial Responses to a Third Dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Third coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses are broadly recommended, but immunogenicity data remain limited, particularly in older adults. METHODS: We measured circulating antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein receptor-binding domain, ACE2 displacement, and virus neutralization against ancestral and omicron (BA.1) strains from prevaccine up to 1 month following the third dose, in 151 adults aged 24-98 years who received COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. RESULTS: Following 2 vaccine doses, humoral immunity was weaker, less functional, and less durable in older adults, where a higher number of chronic health conditions was a key correlate of weaker responses and poorer durability. One month after the third dose, antibody concentrations and function exceeded post-second-dose levels, and responses in older adults were comparable in magnitude to those in younger adults at this time. Humoral responses against omicron were universally weaker than against the ancestral strain after both the second and third doses. Nevertheless, after 3 doses, anti-omicron responses in older adults reached equivalence to those in younger adults. One month after 3 vaccine doses, the number of chronic health conditions, but not age, was the strongest consistent correlate of weaker humoral responses. CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore the immune benefits of third COVID-19 vaccine doses, particularly in older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".