MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401159108 · doi:10.1101/2024.07.28.24311115

Assessing Healthy Vaccinee Effect in COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Studies: A National Cohort Study in Qatar

2024· preprint· en· W4401159108 on OpenAlexaff
Hiam Chemaitelly, Houssein H. Ayoub, Peter Coyle, Patrick Tang, Mohammad R. Hasan, Hadi M. Yassine, Asmaa A. Al Thani, Zaina Al Kanaani, Einas Al‐Kuwari, Andrew Jeremijenko, Anvar Hassan Kaleeckal, Ali Nizar Latif, Riyazuddin Mohammad Shaik, Hanan F. Abdul Rahim, Gheyath K. Nasrallah, Mohamed Ghaith Al‐Kuwari, Hamad Eid Al‐Romaihi, Mohamed H. Al-Thani, Abdullatif Al‐Khal, Roberto Bertollini, Adeel A. Butt, Laith J. Abu‐Raddad

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune responses and vaccinations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationHazard ratioBooster doseIncidence (geometry)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Booster (rocketry)Cohort studyCohortRetrospective cohort studyDemographyImmunologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalImmunizationDiseaseImmune systemInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background This study investigated the presence of the healthy vaccinee effect—the imbalance in health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals—in two COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies involving primary series and booster vaccinations. It also examined the temporal patterns and variability of this effect across different subpopulations by analyzing the association between COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 mortality in Qatar. Methods Two matched, retrospective cohort studies assessed the incidence of non-COVID-19 death in national cohorts of individuals with a primary series vaccination versus no vaccination (two-dose analysis), and individuals with three-dose (booster) vaccination versus primary series vaccination (three-dose analysis), from January 5, 2021, to April 9, 2024. Results The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for non-COVID-19 death was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.90) in the two-dose analysis and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.67-1.07) in the three-dose analysis. In the first six months of follow-up in the two-dose analysis, the aHR was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46); however, the combined analysis of all subsequent periods showed an aHR of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.19-1.94). In the first six months of follow-up in the three-dose analysis, the aHR was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.20-0.50); however, the combined analysis of all subsequent periods showed an aHR of 1.37 (95% CI: 1.02-1.85). The overall effectiveness of the primary series and third-dose vaccinations against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.0-97.1) and 34.1% (95% CI: −46.4-76.7), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the healthy vaccinee effect is pronounced among those aged 50 years and older and among those more clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Conclusion A strong healthy vaccinee effect was observed in the first six months following vaccination. This effect may have stemmed from a lower likelihood of vaccination among seriously ill, end-of-life individuals, and less mobile elderly populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicImmune responses and vaccinationsFrench-language works237,207