Moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection primes vaccine-induced immunity more effectively than asymptomatic or mild infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybrid immunity induced by vaccination following recovery from SARS-CoV-2 infection is more robust than immunity induced by either infection or vaccination alone. To investigate how infection severity influenced the strength and character of subsequent vaccine-induced humoral or cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, we assessed humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 following recovery from infection, vaccine dose 1 and vaccine dose 2 in 35 persons recovered from COVID-19. Persons with polymerase chain reaction or serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a study of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Self-reported symptoms categorized them as experiencing asymptomatic, mild, moderate or severe infection based on duration, intensity and need for hospitalization. Whole blood was obtained before vaccination and after first and second doses. Humoral immunity was assessed by ELISA and cellular immunity by ELISpot and intracellular flow cytometry. Responses were compared between groups recovered from either asymptomatic/mild (n = 14) or moderate/severe (n = 21) infection. Most subjects experienced robust increases in humoral and cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein following 1 vaccination. Quantitative responses to second vaccination were marginal when measured 2.5 months afterwards and moderate or severe infection maintained stronger responses. Polyfunctional CD8+T cell responses were largely restricted to subjects recovered from moderate or severe infection. One vaccine dose triggered stronger immune responses than in a comparable group never infected with SARS-CoV-2, while the second dose produced only minor lasting increases in humoral or cellular responses. Infection history should be considered in planning COVID-19 vaccine administration.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".