MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313259367 · doi:10.3390/vaccines11010011

COVID-19 Vaccines: How Efficient and Equitable Was the Initial Vaccination Process?

2022· article· en· W4313259367 on OpenAlexafffund
Jai K Das, Hsien Yao Chee, Sohail Lakhani, Maryam Hameed Khan, Muhammad Islam, Sajid Muhammad, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Vaccination2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Process (computing)VirologyMedicineComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With nearly 11 billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccine being administered, stark differences in the vaccination rates persist. Vaccine distribution initiatives such as COVAX and African Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT) were formed to ensure equitable vaccine delivery. This review evaluates the initial COVID-19 vaccination efforts and the impact of different vaccine distribution initiatives on equitable vaccination coverage in the early phase. We conducted a descriptive and trend analysis with sub-groups by various context parameters of data on COVID-19 vaccination from December 2020 till February 2022, from four public databases including UNICEF, WHO, COVID-19 Task Force and Our World in Data to examine COVID-19 vaccine distribution progress and the contributions of vaccine procurement initiatives. We found that High Income Countries (HICs) had much higher vaccination rate (78.4%) than Lower-Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) (55.5%) and Low-Income Countries (LICs) (10.9%). Large differentials (>80% to <10%) in the vaccination rates of eligible population of adults in LMICs and LICs existed. Differentials in the total vaccine doses delivered to each country ranged from 355.6% to 4.8% of the total population. In LICs, 53.3% of the total doses were obtained via COVAX, 30.9% by bilateral/multilateral agreements, 6.5% by donations and 3.8% by AVAT. In LMICs, 56.4% of total vaccines procured were via bilateral/multilateral agreements, 21.4% by COVAX, 4.2% by donations and 0.5% by AVAT. COVAX delivered 1 billion doses by January 2022 which constituted 53.2% and 21.4% of procured doses in LICs and LMICs. In LICs and LMICs, 6.5% and 4.2% of total doses were acquired through donations while 30.9% and 56.4% of doses were purchased. Despite global efforts, significant disparities were present in COVID-19 vaccination efforts amongst countries of different income groups. Future efforts should focus on addressing vaccine inequities explicitly and in improving global vaccine distribution.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207