ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024
Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Using a Small and Interpretable Set of Judgment and Demographic Variables: Cross-Sectional Cognitive Science Study.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Judgment behaviors differentiate depression from anxiety.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI Meets Attitudes: Cross-Sectional Quantitative Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Alaska's Diverse Communities.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Free Riding in Healthcare Through a Game-Theoretic Lens: A Cross-Domain Narrative Review and Conceptual Synthesis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Predicting substance use behaviors with machine learning using small sets of judgment and contextual variables.Npj mental health research · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Pharmacogenetic Testing Uptake Among Opioid-Prescribed Patients Using Electronic Health Records: Retrospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Invasive meningococcal disease in adolescents in Europe and select geographies: Disease burden, unmet medical need, and optimizing prevention.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Article
- Discrete, recurrent, and scalable patterns in non-operant judgement underlie affective picture ratings.Cognitive processing · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a clinical prediction tool for non-receipt of updated COVID-19 vaccines.Vaccine · 2025Article
- A novel approach to anxiety level prediction using small sets of judgment and survey variables.Npj mental health research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite COVID-19 vaccine mandates, many chose to forgo vaccination, raising questions about the psychology underlying how judgment affects these choices. Research shows that reward and aversion judgments are important for vaccination choice; however, no studies have integrated such cognitive science with machine learning to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
objectiveThis study aims to determine the predictive power of a small but interpretable set of judgment variables using 3 machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake and interpret what profile of judgment variables was important for prediction.
methodsWe surveyed 3476 adults across the United States in December 2021. Participants answered demographic, COVID-19 vaccine uptake (ie, whether participants were fully vaccinated), and COVID-19 precaution questions. Participants also completed a picture-rating task using images from the International Affective Picture System. Images were rated on a Likert-type scale to calibrate the degree of liking and disliking. Ratings were computationally modeled using relative preference theory to produce a set of graphs for each participant (minimum R
resultsAge, income, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, educational level, and sex differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-square P<.001). Most judgment variables also differed by vaccine uptake (Wilcoxon rank sum P<.05). A similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was achieved by the 3 machine learning frameworks, although random forest and logistic regression produced specificities between 30% and 38% (vs 74.2% for BRF), indicating a lower performance in predicting unvaccinated participants. BRF achieved high precision (87.8%) and AUROC (79%) with moderate to high accuracy (70.8%) and balanced recall (69.6%) and specificity (74.2%). It should be noted that, for BRF, the negative predictive value was <50% despite good specificity. For BRF and random forest, 63% to 75% of the feature importance came from the 15 judgment variables. Furthermore, age, income, and educational level mediated relationships between judgment variables and vaccine uptake.
conclusionsThe findings demonstrate the underlying importance of judgment variables for vaccine choice and uptake, suggesting that vaccine education and messaging might target varying judgment profiles to improve uptake. These methods could also be used to aid vaccine rollouts and health care preparedness by providing location-specific details (eg, identifying areas that may experience low vaccination and high hospitalization).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.