Effectiveness of Cell-Based Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell-based seasonal influenza vaccine viruses may more closely match recommended vaccine strains than egg-based options. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of seasonal cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc), as reported in the published literature. A systematic literature review was conducted (PROSPERO CRD42020160851) to identify publications reporting on the effectiveness of QIVc in persons aged ≥6 months relative to no vaccination or to standard-dose, egg-based quadrivalent or trivalent influenza vaccines (QIVe/TIVe). Publications from between 1 January 2016 and 25 February 2022 were considered. The review identified 18 relevant publications spanning three influenza seasons from the 2017-2020 period, with an overall pooled relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of 8.4% (95% CI, 6.5-10.2%) for QIVc vs. QIVe/TIVe. Among persons aged 4-64 years, the pooled rVE was 16.2% (95% CI, 7.6-24.8%) for 2017-2018, 6.1% (4.9-7.3%) for 2018-2019, and 10.1% (6.3-14.0%) for 2019-2020. For adults aged ≥65 years, the pooled rVE was 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9-12.9%) in the egg-adapted 2017-2018 season, whereas there was no significant difference in 2018-2019. For persons aged 4-64 years, QIVc was consistently more effective than QIVe/TIVe over the three influenza seasons. For persons aged ≥65 years, protection with QIVc was greater than QIVe or TIVe during the 2017-2018 season and comparable in 2018-2019.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".