Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42383737›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026

A simple and powerful test of vaccine waning.

Gellért Perényi, Matias Janvin, Mats J Stensrud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Gellért PerényiInstitute of Mathematics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Rte Cantonale, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Matias JanvinOslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, 0372 Oslo, Norway.
Mats J StensrudInstitute of Mathematics, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Rte Cantonale, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining whether vaccine efficacy wanes is important for individual and public decision making. Yet, quantification of waning is a subtle task. The classical approaches cannot be interpreted as measures of declining efficacy unless we impose unreasonable assumptions. Recently, formal causal estimands designed to quantify vaccine waning have been proposed. These estimands can be bounded under weaker assumptions, but the bounds are often too wide to make claims about the presence of waning. We propose a different approach: a formal test to assess whether a treatment effect is constant over time at the individual level. This test provides a considerable power gain over existing approaches and is valid under interpretable assumptions in vaccine trials. We illustrate the increase in power through real and simulated examples, using 3 different approaches to compute the test statistics. Two of these approaches are based solely on summary data, accessible from existing clinical trials. Beyond our test, we also give new results that bound the waning effect. We use our methods to reanalyze data from a randomized controlled trial of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine. While a prior analysis did not establish waning, our test rejects the null hypothesis of no waning.

Indexed as

COVID-19Vaccine EfficacyBNT162 VaccineHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBNT162 Vaccinecausal inferencechallenge trialhypothesis testvaccine waning

Identifiers

PMID42383737
PMCPMC13537855

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.