Early Omicron infection is associated with increased reinfection risk in older adults in long-term care and retirement facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Older adults are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection and severe disease, especially those in congregate living settings, despite high SARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage. It is unclear whether hybrid immunity (combined vaccination and infection) after one Omicron infection provides increased protection against subsequent Omicron reinfection in older adults. Methods: in Ontario, Canada, within a 75-day period (July to September 2022). Risk of infection was assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Serum anti-spike and anti-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies, microneutralization titres, and spike-specific T cell memory responses, were examined in a subset of 318 residents within the preceding three months. Findings: 133 of 750 participants (17.7%) had a PCR-confirmed Omicron infection during the observation period. Increased infection risk was associated with prior Omicron infection (at 9-29 days: 47.67 [23.73-95.76]), and this was not attributed to days since fourth vaccination (1.00 [1.00-1.01]) or residence outbreaks (>6 compared to ≤6: 0.95 [0.37-2.41]). Instead, reinfected participants had lower serum neutralizing antibodies to ancestral and Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2, and lower anti-RBD IgG and IgA antibodies, after their initial Omicron infection. Interpretation: Counterintuitively, SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection was associated with increased risk of Omicron reinfection in residents of long-term care and retirement homes. Less robust humoral hybrid immune responses in older adults may contribute to risk of Omicron reinfection. Funding: COVID-19 Immunity Task Force of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".