Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccination in People Living with HIV: A Public Health Fundamental Tool for the Protection of Patients and the Correct Management of Infection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV/AIDS is considered a risk factor for increased mortality due to COVID-19. For this reason, it is essential to include this population in vaccination campaigns. Studies found that antibodies are lower in HIV+ patients than in healthy individuals. The aim of this study was to assess the immune response in a cohort of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH) vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccination in order to evaluate the role played by the HIV infection in the efficacy of this vaccine. We carried out a cross-sectional study in the period April-September 2021, involving a cohort of PLWH and a cohort of HIV-uninfected people as the control group. The efficacy of vaccination was high in both groups despite a slight and not significant difference between them. However, important differences were found according to the intensity of the immune response. Specifically, while in the HIV+ group almost a quarter of people had a low response, it is important to remark that the control group had only a high or intermediate response after vaccination. Our results suggest the high efficacy of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in PLWH and the importance to vaccinate against COVID-19 in these patients in order to increase their protection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it