Immune boosting bridges leaky and polarized vaccination models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two different epidemiological models of vaccination are commonly used in dynamical modeling studies. The leaky vaccination model assumes that all vaccinated individuals experience a reduced force of infection by the same amount. The polarized vaccination model assumes that some fraction of vaccinated individuals are completely protected, while the remaining fraction remains completely susceptible; this seemingly extreme assumption causes the polarized model to always predict lower final epidemic size than the leaky model under the same vaccine efficacy. However, the leaky model also makes an implicit, unrealistic assumption: vaccinated individuals who are exposed to infection but not infected remain just as susceptible as they were prior to exposures (i.e., independent of previous exposures). To resolve the independence assumption, we introduce an immune boosting mechanism, through which vaccinated, yet susceptible, individuals can gain protection without developing a transmissible infection. The boosting model further predicts identical epidemic dynamics as the polarized vaccination model, thereby bridging the differences between two models. We further develop a generalized vaccination model to explore how the assumptions of immunity affect epidemic dynamics and estimates of vaccine effectiveness. Significance statement Different assumptions about the long- and medium-term effects of protective vaccination can predict sharply different epidemiological dynamics. However, there has been limited discussion about which assumptions are more realistic and therefore more appropriate for making public health decisions. Here, we show that the differences between the two most common assumptions (the “leaky” and “polarized” vaccination models) are bridged by immune boosting, a mechanism by which individuals who resist infectious challenge due to partial immunity have their immunity increased. We demonstrate that this mechanism has important implications for measuring vaccine effectiveness. Our study challenges fundamental assumptions about commonly used vaccination models and provides a novel framework for understanding the epidemiological impact of vaccination.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".