PCV13, PCV15 or PCV20: Which vaccine is best for children in terms of immunogenicity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The new 15- and 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV15 and PCV20) have been marketed on the basis of immunogenicity criteria, one of them being a non-inferior response as compared with the 13-valent vaccine (PCV13). In the past, PCV13 was also authorized on the basis of the same criteria, using the 7-valent vaccine (PCV7) as a reference. Methods: Our aim was to compare the immunogenicity of these three vaccines in toddlers. Functional opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) titre ratios measured in the same and different randomized trials were computed to assess the respective immunogenicity of these four products. Results: Results suggest that both PCV15 and PCV20 are less immunogenic than PCV13 for most common serotypes and that the two new vaccines induce a broadly similar response. The PCV7 vaccine was already slightly more immunogenic than PCV13 meaning that PCV15 and PCV20 compare poorly with PCV7. Results also point towards a reduced immunogenicity of the 2+1 dose schedule compared to the 3+1 dose schedule for PCV13, PCV15 and PCV20. Conclusion: Post-marketing studies will have to be conducted to assess the effectiveness of PCV15 and PCV20 and their real-life benefit over PCV13.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".