MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389030454 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofad500.1558

1726. Characterization of humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in children in Canada: interim analysis from the Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 PRevalence In children and youNG adults in British Columbia (SPRING) Study

2023· article· en· W4389030454 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabrielle N. Gaultier, Mandy Lo, Brynn McMillan, Amy Huei‐Yi Lee, Bing Cai, Tony Harn, Sofia Bartlett, Muhammad Morshed, Inna Sekirov, Kate Zinszer, Elinor Simons, Piush J. Mandhane, Jonathon L. Maguire, Agatha N. Jassem, Manish Sadarangani

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAvidityVaccinationHerd immunityCohortAntibodyPediatricsPopulationImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A vaccine series consisting of two doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines plus one booster dose is currently recommended for healthy children aged 5-11 years in Canada. Additional studies are needed to understand the longitudinal immunity to COVID-19 vaccination in the pediatric population. The Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 PRevalence In children and youNG adults in British Columbia (SPRING) sub-study aimed to specifically investigate antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 5-11 years. Methods Fifty-four children without immunocompromising conditions or taking immunosuppressive medications were enrolled prior to dose one or dose two of their COVID-19 vaccine. Responses were quantified via: anti-index virus spike protein specific IgG (S-IgG) geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) (binding antibody units, BAU/mL) and S-IgG avidity reported as total relative IgG avidity index (TRAI) (avidity units, AU) at pre-dose two, as well as one and six months post-dose two. A Welch’s t-test compared responses between timepoints. Results The cohort consisted of 55% male and 45% female with a median age of 8 years. The interval between first and second doses ranged from 7 – 18 (median 11) weeks. Concentrations of S-IgG increased from pre-dose two to one month post-dose two (222 vs. 1152 BAU/mL, p < 0.0001). GMCs then decreased by six months post-dose two (1152 vs. 343 BAU/mL, p < 0.0001) to levels similar to pre-dose two (p = 0.0696). TRAI increased between time points. By six months post-dose two, S-IgG TRAI (68 AU) remained higher than pre-dose two (46 AU, p < 0.0001) and one month post-dose two (65 AU, p = 0.0495). This increase in avidity was due to higher concentrations of medium high, high and very high avidity S-IgG as well as a decrease in very low avidity S-IgG at six months post-dose two. Conclusion Concentrations of S-IgG waned significantly by six months post-dose two. The results suggest that due to repeated exposure to the S-protein, affinity maturation has resulted in the production of higher avidity antibodies post-dose two. This suggests that both S-IgG concentrations and avidity should be considered when determining protection against COVID-19 and need to be further explored to support future booster recommendations. Disclosures Sofia R. Bartlett, PhD, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|Abbvie: Grant/Research Support|Cepheid: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead: Grant/Research Support Manish Sadarangani, BM BCh, FRCPC, DPhil, GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Grant/Research Support|Moderna: Grant/Research Support|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Grant/Research Support|Seqirus: Grant/Research Support|Symvivo: Grant/Research Support|VBI Vaccines: Grant/Research Support

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)0.001
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207