Humoral immune response after COVID-19 infection or BNT162b2 vaccine among older adults: evolution over time and protective thresholds

  1. Maxence Meyer
  2. Florentin Constancias
  3. Claudia Worth
  4. Anita Meyer
  5. Marion Muller
  6. Alexandre Boussuge
  7. Georges Kaltenbach
  8. Elise Schmitt
  9. Saïd Chayer
  10. Aurélie Velay
  11. Thomas Vogel
  12. Samira Fafi-Kremer
  13. Patrick Karcher

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s11357-022-00546-y
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266252: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The observational cohort study was approved by the institutional ethics board of the University Hospital of Strasbourg.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serum samples were tested using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay, detecting IgG antibodies directed against the spike RBD of SARS-CoV-2 with results expressed in Binding Antibody Units/ml (BAU/ml) as recommended by the WHO4.
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay, detecting IgG
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Protective thresholds are currently very speculative. Also even if the BAUs and the thresholds were to become clearer, these thresholds could change over time as the variants evolve and the humoral avidity could decrease in addition to the indisputable humoral decrease. Sample size is limited.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.19.21266252v1 on medRxiv