MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413174504 · doi:10.3390/vaccines13080852

Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4413174504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. A. Cruz, Janeth M. Flores-Córdova, Cielo Cinthya Calderon-Hernandez, Nelson Luis Cahuapaza-Gutierrez, Nino Arturo Ccallalli-Ruíz, Fernando M. Runzer‐Colmenares

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationObservational studyImmune systemMedicineImmunologyClinical trialCellular immunityRandomized controlled trialImmunityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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