MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406956426 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofae631.2210

P-2054. Effectiveness of a Single COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Dose in Individuals Previously Infected with SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4406956426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannah R. Volkman, Jennifer L. Nguyen, Mustapha M. Mustapha, Jingyan Yang, Luis Jódar, John M. McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Virology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSars virusImmunologyOutbreakInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Based on the high levels of population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from prior infection in many countries, in fall 2023 the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization authorized/recommended a single mRNA XBB.1.5-adapted vaccine dose for unvaccinated individuals aged ≥ 5y. Methods This systematic literature review evaluated the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a single COVID-19 mRNA dose (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to those with differing histories of prior infection and vaccination (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023453257). We searched MEDLINE and Embase for VE studies published from January 1, 2021–October 4, 2023. Data were synthesized following Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. VE estimates were reported as a range of point estimates per clinical endpoint and meta-analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity. Results Of 1,661 initial results, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion. Among those previously infected, a single mRNA dose (compared to being unvaccinated) increased protection by 8–71% against infection (related to Omicron BA.1, BA.4/5, or XBB), 39–67% against symptomatic infection (BA.1, BA.2, or BA.4/5), and 25–60% against hospitalization or hospitalization or death (BA.1). The protection provided by a single dose among those previously infected was comparable to the VE provided by two doses, and was higher than VE following two doses without prior infection. No studies were identified that reported single-dose VE for adapted vaccines (BA.1 or BA.4/5 bivalent or XBB.1.5-adapted formulations), immunocompromised populations, or children aged < 5y. Conclusion Our results suggest that a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine provides similar protection to that conferred by a two-dose series for immunocompetent individuals aged ≥ 5y in the current setting of high pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 immunity. These findings support current recommendations for one dose of COVID-19 vaccines regardless of vaccination status to be given in advance of the viral respiratory season with considerations for additional doses for certain special populations including young children, older adults, and the immunocompromised. Disclosures Hannah R. Volkman, PhD, MPH, Pfizer Inc: Employment|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Jennifer L Nguyen, ScD, MPH, Pfizer Inc: Employment|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Mustapha M. Mustapha, MD, PhD, MPH, Pfizer Inc: Employment|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Jingyan Yang, MHS, DrPH, Pfizer Inc: Employment|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) Luis Jodar, PhD, Pfizer Inc: Employment|Pfizer Inc: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company) John M. McLaughlin, PhD, Pfizer: Employee|Pfizer: Stocks/Bonds (Public Company)

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.014
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207