MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312155626 · doi:10.1017/s0266462322001957

PP58 SARS-CoV-2: A Rapid Review Of The Transmission Risk From Vaccinated Populations

2022· review· en· W4312155626 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sasha Barrate, Lauren Elston, Katie McDermott, Jenni Washington, Elise Hasler, David Jarrom, Charlotte Bowles, Jessica Williams Tom Winfield, Susan Myles

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)MedicineVaccinationRandomized controlled trialVaccine efficacyCohortVaccine trialCohort studySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Clinical trialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Since the vaccine roll out, research has focused on vaccine safety and efficacy, with large clinical trials confirming that vaccines are generally effective against symptomatic COVID-19 infection. However, breakthrough infections can still occur, and the effectiveness of vaccines against transmission from infected vaccinated people to susceptible contacts is unclear. Health Technology Wales (HTW) collaborated with the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre to identify and examine evidence on the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 from vaccinated people to unvaccinated or vaccinated people. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search for evidence on vaccinated people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in any setting. Outcome measures included transmission rate, cycle threshold (Ct) values and viral load. We identified a rapid review by the University of Calgary that was the main source of our outcome data. Nine studies published following the rapid review were also identified and included. Results In total, 35 studies were included in this review: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one post-hoc analysis of an RCT, 13 prospective cohort studies, 16 retrospective cohort studies and four case control studies. All studies reported a reduction in transmission of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant from partial and fully vaccinated individuals. More recent evidence is uncertain on the effects of vaccination on transmission of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Overall, vaccine effectiveness in reducing transmission appears to increase with full vaccination, compared with partial vaccination. Most of the direct evidence is limited to transmission in household settings therefore, there is a gap in the evidence on risk of transmission in other settings. One UK study found protection against onward transmission waned within 3 months post second vaccination. Conclusions Early findings that focused on the alpha variant, showed a reduction in transmission from vaccinated people. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of vaccination on transmission of the Delta variant, therefore alternative preventative measures to reduce transmission may still be required.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207