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: 59
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★ (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 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingKey resources not met−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability not met−0.5★
ReportingBiological variables partially met−0.25★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: moderateReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No reported statistical tests were found to recompute.

Problems surfaced6 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.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps4

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 and code not sharedAssessed
Key resources not identifiedAssessed
Biological variables underreported (sex, age, strain)Assessed
Ethics/consent reporting 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 methodologically rigorous, well-registered, double-blind randomized noninferiority trial with a sound scientific premise, a priori powering, CI-based estimation, and internally consistent tabulated results. Its main weaknesses are documentation gaps — no explicit informed-consent statement, a vague data-sharing reference without a concrete access route, unnamed statistical software/test, and unreported weight and race/ethnicity — plus minor copyedit issues; none of these undermine the core conclusions.

Three independent reviewer runs of the same model were reconciled; they diverged on biological variables (2 warn vs 1 pass), key resources (1 pass / 1 warn / 1 fail), and statistical analysis (2 pass vs 1 warn), and these splits are reflected in the evidence and confidence. The statistics verification component recomputed 0 tests (coverage limited to tests with a statistic+df or effect+CI), so reported statistics were not machine-verified; the citation check found no retracted or not-found references; the copyedit pass flagged 10 minor issues.

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

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions4 pass · 2 warn · 2 fail

The paper cites prior trials on fractional dosing, WHO recommendations, and a Brazilian dose-finding study. It acknowledges that previous data were not formally analyzed for noninferiority and may not be generalizable to adults in Africa or other vaccine substrains. The rationale for the trial is clearly linked to the need for dose-sparing strategies during outbreaks.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well-established, with prior work cited and limitations addressed.

Evidence

direct quote[Background, paragraph 2]

“Previous data from Brazil (substrain 17DD) had indicated that immunogenicity is reduced at doses below 587 IU.”