Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35292162›Full record

ArticleVaccine2022

Aggregating human judgment probabilistic predictions of the safety, efficacy, and timing of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Thomas McAndrew, Juan Cambeiro, Tamay Besiroglu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. COVID-19 vaccination challenges: A mini-review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas McAndrewCollege of Health, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, United States. Electronic address: mcandrew@lehigh.edu.
Juan CambeiroMetaculus, Santa Cruz California, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, United States.
Tamay BesirogluMetaculus, Santa Cruz California, United States; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.
Columbia University · USLehigh University · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safe, efficacious vaccines were developed to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. But in the middle of 2020, vaccine effectiveness, safety, and the timeline for when a vaccine would be approved and distributed to the public was uncertain. To support public health decision making, we solicited trained forecasters and experts in vaccinology and infectious disease to provide monthly probabilistic predictions from July to September of 2020 of the efficacy, safety, timing, and delivery of a COVID-19 vaccine. We found, that despite sparse historical data, a linear pool-a combination of human judgment probabilistic predictions-can quantify the uncertainty in clinical significance and timing of a potential vaccine. The linear pool underestimated how fast a therapy would show a survival benefit and the high efficacy of approved COVID-19 vaccines. However, the linear pool did make an accurate prediction for when a vaccine would be approved by the FDA. Compared to individual forecasters, the linear pool was consistently above the median of the most accurate forecasts. A linear pool is a fast and versatile method to build probabilistic predictions of a developing vaccine that is robust to poor individual predictions. Though experts and trained forecasters did underestimate the speed of development and the high efficacy of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, linear pool predictions can improve situational awareness for public health officials and for the public make clearer the risks, rewards, and timing of a vaccine.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansJudgmentPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19ForecastingHuman judgementVaccine

Identifiers

PMID35292162
PMCPMC8882426
OpenAlexW4214519304

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.