Deviation from the recommended schedule: optimal dosing interval for a two-dose vaccination programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing vaccination impact during an emerging disease becomes crucial when vaccine supply is limited, and robust protection requires multiple doses. Facing this challenge during the early stages of the COVID-19 vaccine deployment, a pivotal policy question arose: whether to administer a single dose to a larger proportion of the population by deferring the second dose, or to prioritize stronger protection for a smaller subset of the population with the established dosing interval from clinical trials. Using a delay-differential model and considering waning immunity and distribution capacity, we compared these strategies. We found that the efficacy of the first dose significantly influences the impact of delaying the second dose. Even for a relatively low efficacy of the first dose, a delayed strategy may outperform vaccination with the recommended dosing interval in reducing short-term hospitalizations and deaths despite increase in infections. The optimal delay, however, depends on the specific outcome measured and timelines within which the vaccination strategy is evaluated. We found transition lines for the relative reduction of infection, hospitalization and death below which vaccination with the recommended schedule is the preferred strategy. In a realistic parameter space, our results highlight scenarios in which the conclusions of previous studies are invalid.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".