Immune persistence induced by two-dose BBIBP-CorV vaccine with different intervals, and immunogenicity and safety of a homologous booster dose in high-risk occupational population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immune persistence of neutralizing antibodies elicited by BBIBP-CorV vaccines on day 0–14, 0–21 and 0–28 schedule, and the immunogenicity and safety of a homologous booster dose after different priming vaccination regimens is scarcely reported. : Responders (GMT≥16) at day 28, after priming with the two-dose vaccine, were followed up at 3, 6, and 10 months. Eligible participants received a homologous booster dose at month 10 and were followed-up 28 days post-booster. The GMT of neutralizing antibodies in 0–28d-10 m and 0–21d-10 m group were significantly higher than 0–14d-10 m group from month 3 (71.6 & 64.2 vs 46.4, p < 0.001) to month 10 (32.4 & 28.8 vs 20.3, p < 0.001) after the second dose. On day 28 post-booster, a remarkable rebound in neutralizing antibodies (246.2, 277.5, and 288.6, respectively) was observed in the three groups. All adverse reactions were mild after booster injection. The priming two-dose BBIBP-CorV vaccine with 0–28 days and 0–21 days schedule could lead to a longer persistence of neutralizing antibody than the 0–14 days schedule. Regardless of the priming vaccination regimens, a homologous booster dose led to a strong rebound in neutralizing antibodies and might persist for at least 18 months.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".