MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313294701 · doi:10.1101/2022.12.21.22283740

Prior infection- and/or vaccine-induced protection against Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5-related hospitalisations in older adults: a test-negative case-control study in Quebec, Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4313294701 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sara Carazo, Danuta M. Skowronski, Marc Brisson, Chantal Sauvageau, Nicholas Brousseau, Judith Fafard, Rodica Gilca, Denis Talbot, Manale Ouakki, Yossi Febriani, Geneviève Deceuninck, Philippe De Wals, Gaston De Serres

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersMinistère de la SantéMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociauxInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PediatricsImmunologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Due to severe outcomes, elderly adults 60 years or older are prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination but accumulated SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination likely modifies their risk. We estimated vaccine effectiveness against omicron-associated hospitalisation among elderly adults, by number of doses, prior infection history and time since last immunological event. Methods We conducted a test-negative case-control study among symptomatic elderly adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 in Quebec, Canada during BA.1-, BA.2- and BA.4/5-dominant periods. Relative to unvaccinated, infection-naïve participants, we compared COVID-19 hospitalisation risk by mRNA vaccine dose and/or prior infection (pre-omicron or omicron) history. Findings During BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5 periods, two- vs. four-dose vaccine effectiveness alone against hospitalisation was: 78% (95%CI:75-80) vs. 96% (95%CI:93-98); 60% (95%CI:50-97) vs. 84% (95%CI:81-87); and 40% (95%CI:30-49) vs. 68% (95%CI:63-72), respectively, consistent with longer median time since second vs fourth dose. By respective period, effectiveness of pre-omicron vs. omicron infection alone against hospitalisation was: 93% (95%CI:80-97) vs. [not estimable]; 88% (95%CI:50-97) vs. 96% (95%CI:68-99); and 69% (95%CI:30-85) vs. 90% (95%CI:79-95). Regardless of doses (2-5) or prior infection type, hybrid protection was ≥90%, lasting at least 6-8 months during the BA.4/5 period. Prior omicron infection alone reduced BA.4/5 hospitalisation risk by >80% for at least 6-8 months. Interpretation Elderly adults with history of both prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and ≥2 vaccine doses appear well-protected for a prolonged period against omicron hospitalisation, including BA.4/5. Ensuring infection-naïve older adults remain up-to-date with vaccination may further reduce COVID-19 hospitalisations most efficiently. Funding Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→