Cited by 271SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchImmune responses and vaccinationsVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Effect of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on humoral and T-cell responses to single-dose BNT162b2 vaccine

Open access
Prendecki, Maria, Clarke, Candice, Brown, Jonathan, Cox, Alison, Gleeson, Sarah, Guckian, Mary, Randell, Paul, Pria, Alessia Dalla +6 more·2021·The Lancet

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00502-x

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In people with prior infection, a single vaccine dose triggers swift, strong recall of humoral immunity, and neutralizing activity usually surpasses that seen after two doses in infection-naive people.

    “the vaccination of previously infected individuals drives a rapid and very potent recall of humoral immunity, even after a single vaccine dose70–72, with serological neutralizing activity generally exceeding levels seen after two vaccine doses in naive participants.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 16 · Cited by 271

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Walsh EE Frenck RW Jr Falsey AR Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates New Eng J Med 383 2020 2439 2450 33053279 PMC7583697

Authors
Prendecki, M., Clarke, C., Brown, J., Cox, A., Gleeson, S., Guckian, M., Randell, P., Pria, A. D., Lightstone, L., Xu, X.-N., Barclay, W., McAdoo, S. P., Kelleher, P., & Willicombe, M.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • North West London Pathology (GB)
  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Prendecki, Maria
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
397
Issue
10280
Pages
1178-1181
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W3133936567
Cited by
271
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 132
FWCI
20.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
  • Department for International Development, UK Government
  • Imperial College London
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, prior infection, BNT162b2, mRNA vaccines, humoral immune response, T cell response, vaccine efficacy, healthcare workers, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Adult, Aged, Humans, Middle Aged, T-Lymphocytes, Immunity, Humoral, Enzyme-Linked Immunospot Assay, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review