MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407684815 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2025.101033

Assessing the impact of revising MenACWY vaccination schedule for adolescents in the United States: a modelling study

2025· article· en· W4407684815 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Affan Shoukat, Chad R. Wells, Thomas Shin, Lilia Potter-Schwartz, Alison P. Galvani, Seyed M. Moghadas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionCanada Foundation for InnovationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNotsew Orm Sands FoundationSanofi
KeywordsScheduleVaccinationPsychologyMedicineComputer scienceImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The current recommendation for MenACWY vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in the United States (US) includes two doses: the first dose at ages 11-12 and a booster dose at age 16. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has proposed options for revising this schedule by either eliminating the first dose or adjusting the timing of the first dose to age 15 and the booster to ages 17-18. The impact of these alternative schedules on IMD incidence remains undetermined. Methods: We developed an age-stratified, agent-based Monte-Carlo simulation model of meningococcal transmission dynamics, parameterised with US age demographics, to assess the impact of the proposed changes to the MenACWY vaccination schedules. Excluding serogroup A, absent in the US for decades, the model included serogroups C, W, and Y for asymptomatic infection (carriage) and vaccine effectiveness against IMD. We calibrated serogroup-specific transmission and IMD development probabilities by fitting the model to reported IMD cases from 1997 to 2004, before vaccine introduction. The calibrated model then simulated the current vaccination schedule (CVS) starting in 2005 and alternative schedules from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2035, comparing outcomes over the same period. Findings: Switching from the CVS to a single-dose program at age 16 with 61% vaccine uptake (as reported for the booster in 2022) would result in 1062 (95% Uncertainty Range [UR]: 724-1419) additional IMD cases during the 11-year study period. With a case fatality rate of 14.5%, this change could cause an estimated 154 (95% UR: 105-206) additional deaths. Even if vaccine uptake increased to 90% at age 16, the program would still result in 934 (95% UR: 640-1242) additional cases and 135 (95% UR: 93-180) more deaths compared to the CVS. The second alternative schedule (i.e. first dose at age 15, booster at ages 17-18) also increased IMD cases, notably shifting a substantial burden to adolescents aged 11-15 years. Interpretation: Our findings indicate that the current MenACWY vaccination program remains more effective than the proposed alternatives, even with increased vaccine uptake during late adolescence. Improving the uptake rate of the booster at age 16 while maintaining the 11-12-year dose within the existing program would reduce the IMD burden among high-risk adolescents and young adults. Funding: This study was in part supported by Sanofi. Seyed M. Moghadas acknowledges support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant and Alliance Grant (ALLRP 576914-22). Alison P. Galvani acknowledges support from The Notsew Orm Sands Foundation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207