Response to Correspondence on Outcomes of COVID-19 in Unvaccinated Compared With Vaccinated Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study “Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Unvaccinated Compared With Vaccinated Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study”1 examined the influence of 1 or 2 dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination status on “medically attended” COVID-19 infection in solid organ transplant recipients, rather than the overall incidence of COVID-19 disease. Because only medically attended COVID-19 infections are reported, it is possible that, as per Mungmunpuntipantip and Wiwanitkit,2 asymptomatic COVID-19 infection may be unaccounted for in either the vaccinated or unvaccinated cohort, as these patients would not normally present for medical care; however, this is an inherent limitation for most prospective or retrospective COVID-19 registries in which patients do not undergo asymptomatic surveillance for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Our results are further supported by (a) poor immunogenicity of 2 compared with 3 vaccine doses3; (b) greater disease severity with 1 or 2 than with 3 or more vaccine doses during the Omicron wave4; and (c) significantly lower vaccine effectiveness with 2 versus 3 vaccine doses.5 Thus, the main conclusions of the study are made in this context.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".