The role of vaccine status homophily in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey with modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaccine homophily describes non-heterogeneous vaccine uptake within contact networks. This study was performed to determine observable patterns of vaccine homophily, as well as the impact of vaccine homophily on disease transmission within and between vaccination groups under conditions of high and low vaccine efficacy. METHODS: Residents of British Columbia, Canada, aged ≥ 16 years, were recruited via online advertisements between February and March 2022, and provided information about vaccination status, perceived vaccination status of household and non-household contacts, compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines, and history of COVID-19. A deterministic mathematical model was used to assess transmission dynamics between vaccine status groups under conditions of high and low vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: Vaccine homophily was observed among those with 0, 2, or 3 doses of the vaccine. Greater homophily was observed among those who had more doses of the vaccine (p < 0.0001). Those with fewer vaccine doses had larger contact networks (p < 0.0001), were more likely to report prior COVID-19 (p < 0.0001), and reported lower compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines (p < 0.0001). Mathematical modelling showed that vaccine homophily plays a considerable role in epidemic growth under conditions of high and low vaccine efficacy. Furthermore, vaccine homophily contributes to a high force of infection among unvaccinated individuals under conditions of high vaccine efficacy, as well as to an elevated force of infection from unvaccinated to suboptimally vaccinated individuals under conditions of low vaccine efficacy. INTERPRETATION: The uneven uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and the nature of the contact network in the population play important roles in shaping COVID-19 transmission dynamics.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".