MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408992419 · doi:10.1017/s0950268825000378

Evidence on the associations and safety of COVID-19 vaccination and post COVID-19 condition: an updated living systematic review

2025· review· en· W4408992419 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Sterian, Thivya Naganathan, Tricia Corrin, Lisa Waddell

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VaccinationAction (physics)Environmental healthMedicineVirologyOutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) refers to persistent symptoms occurring ≥12 weeks after COVID-19. This living systematic review (SR) assessed the impact of vaccination on PCC and vaccine safety among those with PCC, and was previously published with data up to December 2022. Searches were updated to 31 January 2024 and standard SR methodology was followed. Seventy-eight observational studies were included (47 new). There is moderate confidence that two doses pre-infection reduces the odds of PCC (pooled OR (pOR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.64–0.74, I2 = 35.16%). There is low confidence for remaining outcomes of one dose and three or more doses. A booster dose may further reduce the odds of PCC compared to only a primary series (pOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.98, I2 = 16.85%). Among children ≤18 years old, vaccination may not reduce the odds (pOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56–1.11, I2 = 37.2%) of PCC. One study suggests that vaccination within 12 weeks post-infection may reduce the odds of PCC. For those with PCC, vaccination appears safe (four studies) and may reduce the odds of PCC persistence (pOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57–0.92, I2 = 15.5%).

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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 score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.435
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207