Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 IgG response and decay in Canadian healthcare workers: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Healthcare workers (HCWs) from an interprovincial Canadian cohort were asked to give serial blood samples to identify factors associated with anti-receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) IgG response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Methods Members of the HCW cohort donated blood samples four months after their first SARS-CoV-2 immunization and again at 7, 10 and 13 months. Date and type of immunizations and dates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were collected at each of four contacts, together with information on immunologically-compromising conditions and current therapies. Blood samples were analyzed centrally for anti-RBD IgG and anti-nucleocapsid IgG (Abbott Architect, Abbott Diagnostics). Records of immunization and SARS-CoV-2 testing from public health agencies were used to assess the impact of reporting errors on estimates from the random-effects multivariable model fitted to the data. Results 2752 of 4567 vaccinated cohort participants agreed to donate at least one blood sample. Modelling of anti-RBD IgG titer from 8903 samples showed an increase in IgG with each vaccine dose and with first infection. A decrease in IgG titer was found with the number of months since vaccination or infection, with the sharpest decline after the third dose. An immunization regime that included mRNA1273 (Moderna) resulted in higher anti-RBD IgG. Participants reporting multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis or taking selective immunosuppressants, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, calcineurin inhibitors and antineoplastic agents had lower anti-RBD IgG. Supplementary analyses showed higher anti-RBD IgG in those reporting side-effects of vaccination, no relation of anti-RBD IgG to obesity and lower titers in women immunized early in pregnancy. Sensitivity analysis results suggested no important bias in the self-report data. Conclusion Creation of a prospective cohort was central to the credibility of results presented here. Serial serology assessments, with longitudinal analysis, provided effect estimates with enhanced accuracy and a clearer understanding of medical and other factors affecting response to 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".