Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination in older adults is warranted. AIMS: To synthesize and analyze the current evidence on humoral and cellular immune responses to both standard and booster COVID-19 vaccination in individuals aged 60 years and older. METHODS: Clinical trials and observational studies were included. Reviews, case series, letters to the editor, and similar publications were excluded. A selective literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 18 and Review Manager version 5.4.1. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included: eleven observational studies and two randomized clinical trials, evaluating humoral and cellular immune responses in 782 older adults. Messenger RNA vaccines were the most administered, particularly Pfizer-BioNTech (76.9%) and Moderna mRNA-1273 (23%). In most cases, immune responses were assessed after the second dose and booster doses. Most studies (61.5%) reported increased IgG titers specific to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, while 23.1% reported a decrease. Regarding cellular immunity, 46.2% of the studies reported low interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) levels post-vaccination, whereas 38.5% showed increases. These findings highlight the need for tailored vaccination strategies to address emerging variants, particularly in vulnerable populations such as older adults. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults receiving COVID-19 vaccination, humoral immunity tends to increase, whereas cellular responses are frequently diminished, reflecting age-related immunosenescence that may limit the durability and breadth of protection following vaccination in older adults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".