MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408863906 · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002718

Protection conferred by SARS-CoV-2 infection across a spectrum of reinfection symptoms and severities

2025· article· en· W4408863906 on OpenAlexaff
Layan Sukik, 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, Adeel A. Butt, Hamad Eid Al‐Romaihi, Mohamed H. Al-Thani, Abdullatif Al‐Khal, Roberto Bertollini, Laith J. Abu‐Raddad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Respiratory Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWeill Cornell Medical CollegeQatar UniversityWeill Cornell Medicine - QatarSidra MedicineHamad Medical Corporation
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Internal medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVaccinationImmunologyVirologyOutbreakDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against reinfection. This study analysed this protection across different reinfection symptoms and severities, comparing the preomicron and omicron eras. METHODS: A nationwide, matched, test-negative, case-control study was conducted in Qatar from 5 February 2020 to 12 March 2024. The preomicron analysis used a sample of 509 949 positive and 8 494 782 negative tests, while the omicron analysis included 682 257 positive and 6 904 044 negative tests. Data were sourced from Qatar's national databases for COVID-19 laboratory testing, vaccination, hospitalisation and death. RESULTS: Effectiveness of preomicron infection against preomicron reinfection was estimated at 80.9% (95% CI: 79.1% to 82.6%) for asymptomatic reinfection, 87.5% (95% CI: 86.1% to 88.9%) for symptomatic reinfection, 97.8% (95% CI: 95.7% to 98.9%) for severe COVID-19 reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 97.5% to 100.0%) for critical COVID-19 reinfection and 88.1% (95% CI: 50.3% to 97.2%) for fatal COVID-19 reinfection. For omicron infection against omicron reinfection, the estimates were 46.4% (95% CI: 36.9% to 54.4%) for asymptomatic reinfection, 52.8% (95% CI: 44.4% to 60.0%) for symptomatic reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 55.4% to 100.0%) for severe COVID-19 reinfection, 100.0% (95% CI: 15.1% to 100.0%) for critical COVID-19 reinfection, and 75.2% (95% CI: -58.8% to 97.5%) for fatal COVID-19 reinfection. Effectiveness over time since previous infection showed no discernible decline in protection against all forms of reinfection in the preomicron era, but a rapid decline against asymptomatic and symptomatic reinfections in the omicron era. CONCLUSIONS: A gradient of protection against reinfection is evident, with the highest protection observed against severe forms of COVID-19. Over time, this gradient becomes more pronounced, as protection against asymptomatic and symptomatic reinfections decreases, while protection against severe outcomes remains strong.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Respiratory ResearchSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207