INVESTIGATION OF THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF PANDEMIC VACCINES ON PHYSICAL AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE AFTER THE PANDEMIC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The present study compared the post-pandemic effects of different vaccines and vaccine combinations administered during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in individuals defined as “young-elderly.” Materials and Method: Participants included 440 volunteers who met the inclusion criteria. They were divided into four groups based on the type of vaccine they had received. During data collection, participants completed a Personal Information Form, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the 36- item Short Form Health Survey, and the Alusti Test. The study was conducted between December 15, 2024, and May 29, 2025.Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0. Results: The analyses revealed a statistically significant difference between groups in both the Alusti test (assesses physical performance) and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (assesses quality of life) (p<0.05).This difference was particularly pronounced in the group that received the combination of BioNTech and Sinovac vaccines;it hadlower scores on physical performance and quality of life compared to the other groups. Cognitive performance did not differ significantly between the groups (p>0.05). Conclusion:Therefore,the coronavirus disease vaccines may have varying long-term effects on the individual’s overall health status and quality of life. Keywords: COVID-19; Physical Functional Performance; Cognition; Quality of Life; Vaccines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".