Long-term durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines based on dosage, age and sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lipid nanoparticle (LNP)-formulated mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are a widely adopted multi vaccination public health strategy to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical trial data has described the immunogenicity of the vaccine, albeit within a limited study time frame. Here, we use a within-host mathematical model for LNP-formulated mRNA vaccines, informed by available clinical trial data from 2020 to September 2021, to project a longer term understanding of immunity as a function of vaccine type, dosage amount, age, and sex. We estimate that two standard doses of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2, with dosage times separated by the company-mandated intervals, results in individuals losing more than 99% humoral immunity relative to peak immunity by 8 months following the second dose. We predict that within an 8 month period following dose two (corresponding to the original CDC time-frame for administration of a third dose), there exists a period of time longer than 1 month where an individual has lost more than 99% humoral immunity relative to peak immunity, regardless of which vaccine was administered. We further find that age has a strong influence in maintaining humoral immunity; by 8 months following dose two we predict that individuals aged 18-55 have a four-fold humoral advantage compared to aged 56-70 and 70+ individuals. We find that sex has little effect on the immune response and long-term IgG counts. Finally, we find that humoral immunity generated from two low doses of mRNA-1273 decays at a substantially slower rate relative to peak immunity gained compared to two standard doses of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. Our predictions highlight the importance of the recommended third booster dose in order to maintain elevated levels of antibodies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".