Low-Dose Yellow Fever Vaccine in Adults in Africa.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Low-Dose Yellow Fever Vaccine in Adults in Africa.
Item: Low-Dose Yellow Fever Vaccine in Adults in Africa.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Kimathi D, Juan-Giner A, Bob NS, Orindi B, Namulwana ML, Diatta A, Cheruiyot S, Fall G, Dia M, Hamaluba MM, Nyehangane D, Karanja HK, Gitonga JN, Mugo D, Omuoyo DO, Hussein M, Oloo E, Kamau N, Wafula J, Bendera J, Silvester N, Mwavita J, Joshua M, Mwendwa J, Agababyona C, Ngetsa C, Aisha N, Moki F, Buluku T, Munene M, Mwanga-Amumpaire J, Lutwama J, Kayiwa J, Kamaara E, Barrett AD, Kaleebu P, Bejon P, Sall AA, Grais RF, Warimwe GM, NIFTY Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.75★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Low-Dose Yellow Fever Vaccine in Adults in Africa.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.75 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.
The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 4 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported randomized noninferiority trial. The main methodological strengths are the rigorous study design, clear statistical analysis, and transparent reporting. The primary weaknesses are the lack of an explicit informed consent statement in the manuscript and an insufficiently detailed data availability statement.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which is adopted. The evaluation covers all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable (e.g., species/strain for human trials, code sharing for a trial with no custom code). The statistics verification component found no recomputable tests, so no errors were detected, but the paper's statistics are not endorsed as 'correct' — only that what was checked was consistent.

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior trials on fractional dosing, including a Brazilian trial with the 17DD substrain, and notes limitations such as generalizability and lack of formal noninferiority analysis. The rationale for the trial is clearly stated: to assess noninferiority of fractional doses of the 17D-204 vaccine. The limitations of prior research are addressed by designing a formal noninferiority trial in a broader adult population.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on yellow fever vaccine dose-finding and the need for dose-sparing strategies, and it logically links this to the trial's objectives.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“A dose-finding trial that was carried out in Brazil with the use of the 17DD vaccine substrain showed that a dose of 587 IU resulted in seroconversion in 96.9% of the participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.4 to 99.2), and a dose of 158 IU resulted in seroconversion in 88.5% of the participants (95% CI, 81.5 to 93.6).”