Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34717322›Full record

ArticleChaos (Woodbury, N.Y.)2021

Decisive conditions for strategic vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Lucas Böttcher, Jan Nagler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Chaos (Woodbury, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lucas BöttcherComputational Social Science, Centre for Human and Machine Intelligence, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000000317001897
Jan NaglerDeep Dynamics Group, Centre for Human and Machine Intelligence, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, 60322 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID 0000000178727726

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are being administered, in many countries it may still take months until their supply can meet demand. The majority of available vaccines elicit strong immune responses when administered as prime-boost regimens. Since the immunological response to the first ("prime") dose may provide already a substantial reduction in infectiousness and protection against severe disease, it may be more effective-under certain immunological and epidemiological conditions-to vaccinate as many people as possible with only one dose instead of administering a person a second ("booster") dose. Such a vaccination campaign may help to more effectively slow down the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and reduce hospitalizations and fatalities. The conditions that make prime-first vaccination favorable over prime-boost campaigns, however, are not well understood. By combining epidemiological modeling, random-sampling techniques, and decision tree learning, we find that prime-first vaccination is robustly favored over prime-boost vaccination campaigns even for low single-dose efficacies. For epidemiological parameters that describe the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), recent data on new variants included, we show that the difference between prime-boost and single-shot waning rates is the only discriminative threshold, falling in the narrow range of 0.01-0.02  day

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesHumansVaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34717322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.