MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400686771 · doi:10.2196/49812

Predicting Efficacies of Fractional Doses of Vaccines by Using Neutralizing Antibody Levels: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4400686771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhanwei Du, Caifen Liu, Yuan Bai, Lin Wang, Wey Wen Lim, Eric H. Y. Lau, Benjamin J. Cowling

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsMedicineImmunogenicityVaccinationNeutralizing antibodyAsymptomaticNeutralizationVaccine efficacyImmunologyReactogenicityAntibodyVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that have eluded immunity from vaccines and prior infections, vaccine shortages and vaccine effectiveness pose unprecedented challenges for governments in expanding booster vaccination programs. The fractionation of vaccine doses might be an effective strategy for helping society to face these challenges, as fractional doses may have efficacies comparable with those of the standard doses. Objective: This study aims to investigate the relationship between vaccine immunogenicity and protection and to project efficacies of fractional doses of vaccines for COVID-19 by using neutralizing antibody levels. Methods: In this study, we analyzed the relationship between in vitro neutralization levels and the observed efficacies against both asymptomatic infection and symptomatic infection, using data from 13 studies of 10 COVID-19 vaccines and from convalescent cohorts. We further projected efficacies for fractional doses, using neutralization as an intermediate variable, based on immunogenicity data from 51 studies included in our systematic review. Results: In comparisons with the convalescent level, vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and symptomatic infection increased from 8.8% (95% CI 1.4%-16.1%) to 71.8% (95% CI 63%-80.7%) and from 33.6% (95% CI 23.6%-43.6%) to 98.6% (95% CI 97.6%-99.7%), respectively, as the mean neutralization level increased from 0.1 to 10 folds of the convalescent level. Additionally, mRNA vaccines provided the strongest protection, which decreased slowly for fractional dosing with dosages between 50% and 100% of the standard dose. We also observed that although vaccine efficacy increased with the mean neutralization level, the rate of this increase was slower for vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection than for vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with studies on immune protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on our study, we expect that fractional-dose vaccination could provide partial immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. Our findings provide a theoretical basis for the efficacy of fractional-dose vaccines, serving as reference evidence for implementing fractional dosing vaccine policies in areas facing vaccine shortages and thereby mitigating disease burden. Fractional-dose vaccination could be a viable vaccination strategy comparable to full-dose vaccination and deserves further exploration.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.051
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→