COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among South Asians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among South Asians living in Ontario, Canada compared to non-South Asians and compared the odds of symptomatic COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations and deaths among non-vaccinated South Asians and non-South Asians. This was a test negative design study conducted in Ontario, Canada between December 14, 2020 and November 15, 2021. All eligible individuals >18 years with symptoms of COVID-19 were subdivided by ethnicity (South Asian vs other) and vaccination status (vaccinated versus not). The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness as defined by COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, and secondary outcome was the odds of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death comparing non-vaccinated South Asians to non-vaccinated non-South Asians. 883,155 individuals were included. Among South Asians, two doses of COVID-19 vaccine prevented 93.8% (95% CI 93.2, 94.4) of COVID-19 infections and 97.5% (95% CI 95.2, 98.6) of hospitalizations and deaths. Among non-South Asians, vaccines prevented 86.6% (CI 86.3, 86.9) of COVID-19 infections and 93.1% (CI 92.2, 93.8) of hospitalizations and deaths. Non-vaccinated South Asians had higher odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to non-vaccinated non-South Asians (OR 2.35, 95% CI 2.3, 2.4), regardless of their immigration status. COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing infections, hospitalizations and deaths among South Asians living in Canada. The observation that non-vaccinated South Asians have higher odds of symptomatic COVID-19 infection warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".