MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411151157 · doi:10.7554/elife.103690

Assessing healthy vaccinee effect in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies: a national cohort study in Qatar

2025· article· en· W4411151157 on OpenAlexaff
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, Hamad Eid Al-Romaihi, Mohamed H. Al-Thani, Abdullatif Al‐Khal, Roberto Bertollini, Adeel A. Butt, Laith J. Abu‐Raddad

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWeill Cornell Medicine - QatarUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationHamad Medical CorporationQatar UniversitySidra MedicineL'Oreal USA
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationHazard ratioBooster doseIncidence (geometry)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cohort studyCohortBooster (rocketry)Retrospective cohort studyDemographyImmunologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalImmunizationDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Immune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: This study investigated the presence of the healthy vaccinee effect-the imbalance in health status between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals-in two rigorously conducted COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies involving primary series and booster vaccinations. It also examined the temporal patterns and variability of this effect across different subpopulations by analyzing the association between COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 mortality in Qatar. Methods: Two matched, retrospective cohort studies assessed the incidence of non-COVID-19 death in national cohorts of individuals with a primary series vaccination versus no vaccination (two-dose analysis), and individuals with three-dose (booster) vaccination versus primary series vaccination (three-dose analysis), from January 5, 2021, to April 9, 2024. Results: The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for non-COVID-19 death was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64-0.90) in the two-dose analysis and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.67-1.07) in the three-dose analysis. In the first 6 months of follow-up in the two-dose analysis, the aHR was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27-0.46); however, the combined analysis of all subsequent periods showed an aHR of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.19-1.94). In the first 6 months of follow-up in the three-dose analysis, the aHR was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.20-0.50); however, the combined analysis of all subsequent periods showed an aHR of 1.37 (95% CI: 1.02-1.85). The overall effectiveness of the primary series and third-dose vaccinations against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.0-97.1) and 34.1% (95% CI: -46.4-76.7), respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that the healthy vaccinee effect is pronounced among those aged 50 years and older and among those more clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Conclusions: A pronounced healthy vaccinee effect was observed during the first 6 months following vaccination, despite meticulous cohort matching. This effect may have stemmed from a lower likelihood of vaccination among seriously ill, end-of-life individuals, and less mobile elderly populations. Funding: Biomedical Research Program and the Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Biomathematics Research Core, and Junior Faculty Transition to Independence Program, all at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Qatar University, Ministry of Public Health, Hamad Medical Corporation, Sidra Medicine, Qatar Genome Programme, Qatar University Biomedical Research Center, and L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women In Science Middle East Regional Young Talents Program.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.425 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207