Superior immunogenicity and effectiveness of the third compared to the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose

  1. Yaniv Lustig
  2. Tal Gonen
  3. Lilac Meltzer
  4. Mayan Gilboa
  5. Victoria Indenbaum
  6. Carmit Cohen
  7. Sharon Amit
  8. Hanaa Jaber
  9. Ram Doolman
  10. Keren Asraf
  11. Carmit Rubin
  12. Ronen Fluss
  13. Ella Mendelson
  14. Laurence Freedman
  15. Gili Regev-Yochay
  16. Yitshak Kreiss

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41590-022-01212-3
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.19.21268037: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethical Statement: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Sheba Medical Center (SMC) and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
    Consent: Ethical Statement: The protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Sheba Medical Center (SMC) and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    To present all IgG Antibody levels in Binding Antibody Units (BAU) per the World Health Organization (WHO) standard measurements we imputed the Abott-based BAU values from the Beckman-Coulter assay results, based on an independent sample of individuals with both Abbott BAU and Beckman-Coulter levels (see Supplementary Methods 4.1).
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    Graphical presentation: Scatter plots of IgG and neutralizing antibody levels since the receipt of the second and third doses were created with the use of GraphPad Prism software, version 9.0 (GraphPad Software).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), and the linear mixed-model analyses were performed using R software, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).
    SAS
    suggested: (SASqPCR, RRID:SCR_003056)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.19.21268037 on medRxiv