Real-time analysis of a mass vaccination effort confirms the safety of FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.20.21252134: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    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:
    There are several limitations of this study. First, while the analysis was conducted on a population derived from a large healthcare system, the cohort demographics are not representative of the American population. For example, both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts were predominantly Caucasian (>90%) and female (>60%). These biases likely reflect both the populations who receive care at the various Mayo Clinic centers and the populations who have been prioritized in Phase 1a of the vaccine rollout. The enrichment of healthcare workers among individuals vaccinated in this phase likely leads to an underestimation of the rates of return to clinic, due to the factors previously discussed (i.e. access to an Occupational Health Services office and other institution-specific COVID-19 response centers). Second, the BERT model used to curate EHR notes does not imply a direct link between COVID-19 vaccination and the experience of a phenotype. That is, we simply capture the occurrence of an adverse effect without ensuring that the clinical note indeed suggests or confirms that vaccination caused the symptom. This shortcoming is addressed by comparing vaccinated individuals to the unvaccinated control cohort, which establishes a baseline expected frequency for each symptom in the absence of vaccination. Finally, while sentences suggesting the occurrence of anaphylaxis were manually reviewed to confirm both the positive sentiment and the tense, sentences for the other curated phe...

    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.

    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.