Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
2021 · paper · Clinical trials
A placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in 30,420 high-risk adults in the United States. The vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy against symptomatic Covid-19, including severe disease, with transient side effects and no other safety concerns.
Checked: PDF from europepmc.org, fetched 4 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
13 findings
Substance Fig. S1 reads '15208 assigned to 100 ug mRNA-1273', while the article's Figure 1 gives '15,210 Were assigned to receive two doses of mRNA-1273'. With 15210 placebo, Fig. S1's arms total 30418, not the '30420 randomized 1:1'.
- p. 12 Fig. S1, mRNA-1273 arm box
15208 assigned to 100 ug mRNA-1273
- p. 5 Figure 1
15,210 Were assigned to receive two doses of mRNA-1273
- p. 12 Fig. S1, top box
30420 randomized 1:1
- p. 5 Figure 1 / Results text
15,210 Were assigned to receive
Judge's note: Both supp-03 p12 and main p5 were checked on the images. Article Fig. 1 gives 15,181 dosed and 29 not dosed, which adds up to 15,210. Fig. S1's own 15181 dosed is consistent with 15210, not 15208.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Text: "Solicited systemic adverse events in the mRNA-1273 group lasted a mean of 2.6 days and 3.1 days after the first and second doses (Table S5)"; Table S5 gives Any Systemic AR mean 2.9 (3.7) after vaccination 1.
- p. 8 Results, Safety
mRNA-1273 group lasted a mean of 2.6 days and 3.1 days after the first and second doses
- p. 22 Table S5, Any Systemic AR, Vaccination 1, mRNA-1273
2.9 (3.7)
- p. 8 Safety paragraph
lasted a mean of 2.6 days and
Judge's note: The Table S5 image (supp-03 p22) shows a systemic mean of 2.9 after dose 1 and 3.1 after dose 2 for mRNA-1273. The value 2.6 is the any-local figure for dose 1, which the text also gives correctly on p7. A weighted check confirms that 2.9 fits the table's total of 3.0.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Figure 3B No. at Risk, placebo: "14,515 13,806 12,352 12,694 11,450"; the count at risk rises from 12,352 (day 50) to 12,694 (day 60).
- p. 10 Figure 3B, No. at Risk row, Placebo
14,515 13,806 12,352 12,694 11,450
- p. 10 Figure 3B No. at Risk row, placebo
13,806 12,352 12,694 11,450
- p. 10 Figure 3 Panel B, No. at Risk, Placebo row
14,598 14,590 14,567 14,515 13,806 12,352 12,694 11,450
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Verified in the main p10 image. The number at risk in a fixed randomized cohort cannot increase. The mRNA-1273 row falls steadily (13,825, 13,398, 12,791), and Panel A placebo is 12,992 at day 50. The day-50 placebo value looks like a misprint, but the correct value is not known.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance In Table S2, the ≥18–<65 at-risk placebo Race 'Not reported' cell reads '1 (0.7)'. The total (34) minus the mRNA-1273 count (16) gives 18, and 18/2535 = 0.7%.
- p. 15 Table S2, Race, Not reported, ≥18-<65 at risk, Placebo
1 (0.7)
Judge's note: The value '1 (0.7)' is visible in the supp-03 p15 crop. The race rows reach N=2535 only with 18, and the overall placebo count of 73 = 42+18+13 also requires 18.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table S2, baseline bAb Positive, ≥18–<65 not at risk, Total is printed "44 (2.5)". The arms (216 + 230) give 446, which matches 2.5%.
- p. 16 Table S2, Baseline bAb, Positive, ≥18-<65 not at risk, Total
44 (2.5)
Judge's note: Checked in the crop of supp-03 p16. The arm counts are 216 and 230. The column N is 8886 + 8888 = 17774. 446/17774 = 2.5%, while 44 would be 0.25%. A digit appears to have been dropped.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table S2 occupational-risk counts with dropped digits: Warehouse overall mRNA-1273 "19 (1.3)" (should be 191), Transportation at-risk placebo "9 (3.9)" (98), Border Protection overall placebo "6 (0.4)" (68), Pastoral at-risk Total "19 (3.8)" (191).
- p. 16 Table S2, Warehouse Shipping and Fulfillment, Overall mRNA-1273
19 (1.3)
- p. 17 Table S2, Transportation and Delivery, at risk placebo
9 (3.9)
- p. 17 Table S2, Border Protection and Military Personnel, Overall placebo
6 (0.4)
- p. 17 Table S2, Pastoral, Social or Public Health Workers, at risk Total
19 (3.8)
Judge's note: Checked on supp-03 p16–17. In each case the printed count conflicts with its own percentage and with the row and column sums: 138+44+9=191 and 175+191=366; 313+98+62=473 and 195-97=98; 51+11+6=68 and 137-69=68; 101+90=191, which is 3.8% of about 5065.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Substance Table S15, Severe AEs: "Vertigo 0 0 1 (<0.1)". Both arms are 0 but the Total is 1.
- p. 35 Table S15, Severe AEs, Vertigo row
Vertigo 0 0 1 (<0.1)
- p. 35 Table S15, Severe AEs, Vertigo row
Vertigo
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen on supp-03 p35. The Total column elsewhere equals placebo + mRNA-1273, so either one arm cell or the Total is wrong. Only the authors can say which.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The Research Summary results table heads its columns "N=14,550" (mRNA-1273) and "N=14,598" (placebo), which are the mITT Ns, but lists the per-protocol counts of 11 vs 185 symptomatic and 0 vs 30 severe cases beside them. The per-protocol Ns are 14,134 and 14,073.
- p. 1 Results table under the cumulative incidence plot
N=14,550 N=14,598
- p. 12 Figure 4
185/14,073 11/14,134
Judge's note: supp-05 p1 shows the mITT Ns above the 11/185 and 0/30 counts and the 94.1% VE. Figure 3A (main p10) gives the per-protocol Ns as 14,134/14,073 with VE 94.1%. Figure 3B gives the mITT counts with those Ns as 12/204 from 14 days after dose 2 and 19/269 in total, not 11/185. The population label does not match the numbers in the table.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The supplement contents list gives 'Table S4. Solicited Adverse Reactions Within 7 days After First Injection by Grade' (repeating the S3 title), but the table is titled 'Within 7 Days After Second Vaccination by Grade'. The S5 entry likewise reads 'After First Injection', while the table covers first and second vaccinations.
- p. 2 Table of Contents
Table S4. Solicited Adverse Reactions Within 7 days After First Injection by Grade
- p. 20 Table S4 title
Within 7 Days After Second Vaccination by Grade
- p. 20 Table S4 title
Table S4. Solicited Adverse Reactions Within 7 Days After Second Vaccination by Grade
- p. 2 Table of Contents, Table S5 entry
Table S5. Number of Days Reporting Solicited Adverse Reactions After First Injection
Judge's note: The contents page (supp-03 p2) has the S4 entry worded the same as S3. The table itself (p20) is titled 'Second Vaccination' and labelled 'Vaccination 2'. The S5 table title in the text is 'After First and Second Vaccinations'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Text calls the analysis including seropositive participants "in the per-protocol analysis (187 cases with placebo, vs. 12 with mRNA-1273", but Table S16 labels this endpoint "n/N events§ FAS 187/15170 12/15181" (§ n and N based on FAS).
- p. 9 Results, Efficacy
seropositive at baseline in the per-protocol analysis (187 cases with placebo, vs. 12 with mRNA-1273
- p. 36 Table S16, last endpoint
n/N events§ FAS 187/15170 12/15181
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The Table S16 image (supp-03 p36) shows this endpoint computed on the FAS. By definition the per-protocol set excludes people with baseline infection (Figure 1 legend). The population label in the text therefore conflicts with the table. Note also that the Table S16 title says 'Per-protocol Set'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Figure 4 legend defines communities of color as "all others, including those whose race and ethnicity were both reported as unknown, were not reported, or were both missing", but subgroup counts fall short of N and Table S2 footnote excludes unknown/unreported/missing.
- p. 12 Figure 4, Race and ethnic group rows and caption
communities of color (all others, including those whose race and ethnicity were both reported as unknown
- p. 17 Table S2 footnote
communities of color includes all the others whose race or ethnicity is not unknown, unreported or missing
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: In the main p12 image, White plus communities of color is 8916+5132 = 14048 against N = 14073 for placebo, and 9023+5088 = 14111 against 14134 for mRNA-1273. The Table S2 footnote (supp-03 p17) defines the group as 'all the others whose race or ethnicity is not unknown, unreported or missing'. The legend's 'including' conflicts with both the counts and the supplement.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Table S16 (Per-protocol Set) heads both the Placebo and the mRNA-1273 column "(N=14073)". The mRNA-1273 per-protocol N is 14,134.
- p. 36 Table S16 column header
(N=14073)
- p. 12 Fig. S1 / PP counts
14134 included in PP analysis
Judge's note: The crop shows both column headers as N=14073. Figure 3A in the article (main p10) gives 14,134 at risk in the per-protocol mRNA-1273 group and 14,073 in placebo, so the mRNA-1273 header repeats the placebo N. Nothing in the files describes an alternative population with N=14,073 for mRNA-1273.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The per-protocol dose-2 window appears as 'received dose 2 outside of [day 22, 42] window' and, later on the same page, as 'outside of day [23, 42] window'. The article's Fig. 1 says 'between 7 days before and 14 days after day 29'.
- p. 10 Rationale for PP population
received dose 2 outside of [day 22, 42] window
- p. 10 Additional details supporting Figures 3A and 3B
day [23, 42] window
- p. 5 Figure 1 caption
between 7 days before and 14 days after day 29
- p. 10 Rationale for PP population
outside of [day 22, 42] window
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Supp-03 p10 states both bounds for the same exclusion rule. The Fig. 1 caption on main p5 gives days 22–43 if counted literally. Only the authors can say which bounds were applied.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
31 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Substance Table S17, Negative stratum, mRNA-1273: the incidence rate is printed as "3.6 (1.8-6.2)" per 1,000 person-years, but 12 events over 3390.1 person-years gives 3.5.
- p. 37 Table S17, Negative, mRNA-1273 incidence rate
3.6 (1.8-6.2)
Judge's note: On supp-03 p37 the row reads 12 cases and 3390.1 PY. The footnote defines the rate as events adjusted by person-years. That method reproduces the placebo value (185/3382.9 = 54.7) and the printed VE by incidence rate of 0.935 (1 - 3.54/54.69). A rate of 3.6 would give about 0.934. The difference is small, but the printed point estimate does not follow from the printed inputs.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label Larkin T. Wadsworth III (St. Louis, MO) is listed under 'Suncoast Research Group' in the study-group list but under 'Sundance Clinical Research' in the investigator list.
- p. 4 COVE Study Group list
Suncoast Research Group
- p. 8 List of COVE Trial Investigators
Sundance Clinical
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: In supp-03 p4, Wadsworth appears under Suncoast Research Group, St. Louis, MO, while Suncoast's other row is in Miami. In supp-03 p8, his institution is Sundance Clinical Research, St. Louis, MO. The two lists give conflicting institution names.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The supplement says 'In Figures 3 and 4, the time axis started from randomization in days.', but article Figure 4 is a subgroup forest plot with no time axis; the section is about Figures 3A and 3B.
- p. 10 Additional details supporting Figures 3A and 3B
In Figures 3 and 4, the time axis started from randomization in days.
Judge's note: Main p12 shows Figure 4 as a forest plot of vaccine efficacy, and supp-03 has no figure numbered 4. The heading on supp-03 p10 is 'Additional details supporting Figures 3A and 3B'.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In Fig. S1 the parallel PP-exclusion boxes read '154 not yet received dose 2, out of window for IA' (placebo) and '138 not yet received dose 2, out of window for PA' (mRNA-1273).
- p. 12 Fig. S1, PP exclusion boxes
154 not yet received dose 2, out of window for IA
- p. 12 Fig. S1, mRNA-1273 PP exclusion box
138 not yet received dose 2, out of window for PA
- p. 12 Fig. S1, PP exclusion boxes
window for lA
- p. 12 Fig. S1, PP exclusion boxes
window for PA
Judge's note: Supp-03 p12 image. The same criterion carries two different analysis labels, and the PP counts (14073/14134) belong to the primary analysis. Separately, 'SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis*' has an asterisk with no footnote on the page.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label In the SAP, the second figure is captioned "Figure 1 Event/Case-Driven Study with 24 Months of Planned Follow-Up", although "Figure 1 Study Design Schematic" comes before it and the text cites it as "(Figure 2)".
- p. 19 SAP section 4.1
Figure 1 Study Design Schematic
- p. 20 SAP section 4.1, second figure caption
Event/Case-Driven Study with 24 Months of Planned Follow-Up
- p. 18 SAP section 4.1 text
until Month 25, to enable assessment of long-term safety and durability of VE (Figure 2)
Judge's note: The crops confirm both captions read 'Figure 1' (supp-04 p19 and p20), and the text on p18 cites 'Figure 2' for the follow-up schematic. This is a numbering slip, and the intended figure is clear.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Reference or label The SAP labels two different tables "Table 3": "Table 3. Derivation of Secondary efficacy endpoint..." (p45) and "Table 3: Interim Boundaries Using O'Brien-Fleming Spending function..." (p50).
- p. 50 Section 6.4
Table 3:
- p. 45 Section 6.3.2.3
Table 3. Derivation of Secondary efficacy endpoint
Judge's note: Both captions were confirmed in the crops. The SAP List of Tables (supp-04 text, lines 244-246) lists only the interim-boundaries Table 3, so the derivation table is missing from the list. The text pointer 'summarized in Figure 3 and Table 3' (line 1692) is ambiguous as a result.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Risk-factor list reads "cardiac disease (e.g., heart failure, congenital coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, or pulmonary hypertension)", which seems to merge 'congenital heart disease' with 'coronary artery disease'.
- p. 3 risk factors list
congenital coronary artery disease
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: the CDC list of the time names coronary artery disease and congenital heart disease as separate conditions. The page image (main p3) shows the wording as quoted, so this is not an extraction artefact. Only the authors can say which conditions they meant.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Primary analysis has "an efficacy data cutoff date of November 21, 2020" (p5 text), but Figure 1 says "The data cutoff for the primary analysis occurred on November 25, 2020" and Efficacy results count cases "through November 25, 2020".
- p. 5 Statistical Analysis (end)
with an efficacy data cutoff date of November 21, 2020
- p. 5 Figure 1 caption
The data cutoff for the primary analysis occurred on November 25, 2020.
- p. 9 Results, Efficacy
After day 1 and through November 25, 2020
- p. 5 Results, first paragraph
efficacy data cutoff date of November 21, 2020
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Seen in the images of p5 (text and Figure 1 legend) and p9. The supplement (supp-03, Figure S2 text) also refers to 'November 25, 2020 data' for the primary end point. The text calls Nov 21 the 'efficacy' cutoff, which may mean it differs from a general cutoff, but the efficacy results are reported through Nov 25 and the paper never says which cutoff applies to which data. The authors need to clarify this.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "The most common injection-site event was pain after injection (86.0%)" does not appear in the cited Tables S3/S4, which give 83.7% (dose 1) and 88.2% (dose 2); the dose or denominator is not stated.
- p. 7 Results, Safety
The most common injection-site event was pain after injection (86.0%).
- p. 18 Table S3, Pain, mRNA-1273
12690 (83.7)
- p. 20 Table S4, Pain, mRNA-1273
12943 (88.2)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Table S3 (supp-03 p18): 12690/15168 = 83.7%. Table S4 (p20): 12943/14677 = 88.2%. The simple mean of the two percentages is about 86.0, while pooling over both doses gives 85.9. The paper does not say how 86.0% was derived.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "a total of 269 Covid-19 cases were identified" is the placebo-only count (Fig. 3B: 269 placebo, 19 mRNA-1273); Discussion "As of the data cutoff, 11 cases of Covid-19 had occurred in the mRNA-1273 group" omits that 11 is the per-protocol primary-endpoint count (19 at any time in mITT).
- p. 9 Results, Efficacy, first sentence
a total of 269 Covid-19 cases were identified
- p. 10 Figure 3B table
Total (any time after randomization) 269 19
- p. 12 Discussion, limitations paragraph
As of the data cutoff, 11 cases of Covid-19 had occurred in the mRNA-1273 group
- p. 10 Figure 3B, Covid-19 Onset table
Total (any time after randomization)
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The Figure 3B image (p10) gives totals of 269 for placebo and 5+2+0+12=19 for mRNA-1273. The p9 sentence ties the incidence to the placebo group but presents 269 as 'a total'. The p12 Discussion gives 11 with no stated population or time window. Both are wording ambiguities.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table S17 (mITT, baseline-negative, N=14598/14550) gives "185 (1.3)" placebo vs "12 (<0.1)" mRNA-1273 Covid-19 cases. Figure 3B uses the same mITT Ns and gives 204 vs 12 starting 14 days after dose 2, and 269 vs 19 in total.
- p. 37 Table S17, Negative, Number with Covid-19
185 (1.3) 12 (<0.1)
- p. 10 Figure 3B onset table
Starting 14 days after dose 2 204 12
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Both images were checked. The S17 negative-stratum Ns match the Figure 3B mITT Ns exactly. The placebo count of 185 matches the per-protocol count rather than either mITT window, while 12 matches the mITT count for mRNA-1273. The S17 footnote counts person-years from randomization but gives no case-counting window or adjudication basis. The S17 placebo rate of 54.7 also differs from the Figure 3B mITT rate of 79.8. Nothing in the article text (p11) or the supplement explains this. Only the authors can say which window or case definition S17 uses.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording In the per-protocol baseline table, placebo Race 'Not reported and unknown' reads '117 (0.9)'; 117/14073 is 0.83%, which rounds to 0.8.
- p. 11 Baseline Demographics in the Per-Protocol Set, Race, Not reported and unknown, Placebo
117 (0.9)
Judge's note: Supp-03 p11. The placebo race rows add up exactly to 14073, so N is the correct denominator. The neighbouring cells recompute correctly (mRNA 139/14134 = 1.0, total 256/28207 = 0.9).
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording In the per-protocol baseline table, mRNA-1273 Ethnicity 'Not reported and unknown' reads '133 (1.0)'; 133/14134 is 0.94%, which rounds to 0.9.
- p. 11 Baseline Demographics in the Per-Protocol Set, Ethnicity, Not reported and unknown, mRNA-1273
133 (1.0)
Judge's note: Supp-03 p11. The ethnicity rows add up to N (2789+11212+133 = 14134), and the placebo cell 128/14073 = 0.9 is correct.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Fig. 4 White and 'Communities of color' denominators (8916+5132 placebo; 9023+5088 mRNA-1273) do not add up to the arm totals (14,073; 14,134), although the caption says communities of color includes 'all others, including those whose race and ethnicity were both reported as unknown, were not reported, or were both missing at screening'.
- p. 12 Figure 4, Race and ethnic group
144/8916 ... 41/5132 ... 10/9023 ... 1/5088
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked main p12. The event counts add up (144+41=185; 10+1=11), but the denominators fall short by 25 (placebo) and 23 (mRNA-1273). The supplement's Table S2 (supp-03 p15) has a third 'Missing' row under Race and Ethnicity Group (26/26 in the FAS). Its footnote says communities of color include only those whose race or ethnicity is 'not unknown, unreported or missing'. That probably accounts for the gap, but it contradicts the Fig. 4 caption, which puts unknown, unreported and missing cases in communities of color. The authors should say which definition applies.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording The footnotes to Tables S6/S7 define "CI = Confidence intervals. N1 = Number of exposed participants…" and "95% CI is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method", but the tables show only n (%) with no CI or N1.
- p. 24 Table S6 footnote
95% CI is calculated using the Clopper-Pearson method
- p. 26 Table S7 footnote
CI = Confidence intervals. N1 = Number of exposed participants
Judge's note: Checked supp-03 p24, p25 and p26. The column headers show N and n (%) only, and no confidence interval or N1 appears anywhere in the tables. The footnote looks like template text and does not match the table contents.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Table S10 is titled "Unsolicited Severe AEs Reported by ≥5 Participants in Any Treatment Group" but includes Atrial Fibrillation "3 (<0.1) 4 (<0.1)" and Injection site pain "1 (<0.1) 3 (<0.1)".
- p. 29 Table S10 title and rows
Atrial Fibrillation 3 (<0.1) 4 (<0.1)
- p. 29 Table S10, Injection site pain
Injection site pain 1 (<0.1) 3 (<0.1)
Judge's note: Checked supp-03 p29. Neither preferred term reaches 5 in either group. Every other preferred term in the table meets the threshold in at least one arm.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Same 30 placebo severe PP cases: Table S13 reports ICU admission "1 (3.3)", ARDS 1 and respiratory failure 1, and oxygen saturation ≤93‡ 27. Table S14 reports "ICU 2 (7)", "Respiratory failure or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome 6 (20)" and oxygen saturation ≤93%* 28, with the same CRF-derived footnote.
- p. 33 Table S13, Severe Covid-19 cases, Placebo
Admission to an intensive care unit due to SARS-CoV-2 1 (0.5) 0 1 (3.3)
- p. 34 Table S14
Respiratory failure or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome 6 (20)
- p. 33 Table S13, severe Covid-19 cases, placebo
Admission to an intensive care unit due to SARS-CoV-2
- p. 34 Table S14
ICU
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Checked supp-03 p33 and p34. Table S14 states 'Data from December 3rd, 2020'. Table S13 gives no cutoff; the primary analysis cutoff is Nov 25. A later cutoff, or different definitions (for example 'due to SARS-CoV-2', or counting oxygen support), may explain the differences, but neither table says so. The authors should confirm which cutoff and definitions apply to each table.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Supplement typographic slips: Table S2 Unknown ethnicity overall Total "92 0.3)"; PP baseline table "11165 79.3)"; Table S4 Grade 2 placebo "67 (0.6))"; TOC and Table S7 title "SARS-COv-2".
- p. 15 Table S2, Ethnicity, Unknown, Overall Total
92 0.3)
- p. 2 TOC and Table S7 title
SARS-COv-2
- p. 20 Table S4, Grade 2 any local AR, 18-<65 placebo
67 (0.6))
- p. 11 PP baseline table, Not Hispanic or Latino placebo
11165 79.3)
Judge's note: I checked all four crops and the Table S7 title on supp-03 p25. Each slip is visible in the image: two opening parentheses are missing, one closing parenthesis is doubled, and 'SARS-COv-2' has the wrong capitalisation. The fixes are obvious.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "(187 cases with placebo, vs. 12 with mRNA-1273; one volunteer assigned to receive mRNA-1273 was inadvertently given placebo], indicating" contains a closing ']' with no matching '['.
- p. 9 Results, Efficacy
was inadvertently given placebo], indicating
Judge's note: Seen in the main p9 image. The parenthesis opened at '(187' is closed later by '96.5])'. The ']' after 'placebo' has no opening bracket.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "vaccine efficacy of 100% [95% CI, could not be estimated to 1.0]" gives the estimate as a percentage but the upper bound as a proportion.
- p. 9 Results, Efficacy
100% [95% CI, could not be estimated to 1.0]
Judge's note: Seen in the main p9 image. Table S16 gives the value as '1.00 (NE-1.00)' and the text elsewhere uses percentages, so the bound should read 100. The meaning can still be recovered.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Supplemental Statistical Methods read '(based on 1 – Kaplan-Mere estimate)' instead of Kaplan–Meier.
- p. 9 Supplemental Statistical Methods
based on 1 – Kaplan-Mere estimate
- p. 9 Stratified Cox regression model section
1 – Kaplan-Mere estimate
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the crop of supp-03 p9.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In the per-protocol baseline table, the placebo 'Not Hispanic or Latino' cell reads '11165 79.3)' with no opening parenthesis.
- p. 11 Per-Protocol baseline table, Not Hispanic or Latino, Placebo
11165 79.3)
Judge's note: The missing parenthesis is visible in the zoomed crop of supp-03 p11.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Figure 4 legend: "The efficacy of the RNA-1273 vaccine in preventing Covid-19"; should be mRNA-1273.
- p. 12 Figure 4 caption, first line
The efficacy of the RNA-1273 vaccine
- p. 12 Figure 4 legend
The efficacy of the RNA-1273 vaccine in preventing Covid-19
Judge's note: Seen in the main p12 image. The product is called mRNA-1273 everywhere else.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table S7, Nausea/vomiting Grade 3, baseline-negative Total prints only "(0.1)" with no count. From 11 + 19 the count should be 30.
- p. 26 Table S7, Nausea/vomiting Grade 3, Baseline negative Total
(0.1)
Judge's note: Seen on supp-03 p26: the count is missing from the cell. The adjacent cells read 11 (<0.1) and 19 (0.1), and 30/28302 is 0.1%.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Table S15 Headache severe AE Total is printed "17 9<0.1)". It should read "17 (<0.1)".
- p. 35 Table S15, Severe AEs, Headache total
17 9<0.1)
Judge's note: Seen on supp-03 p35. A '9' appears in place of the opening parenthesis. The count of 17 = 8 + 9 is correct.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo A disclosure form reads 'I am the Saint Louis Univesity's (SLU)' ('Univesity' is misspelled).
- p. 36
I am the Saint Louis Univesity's (SLU)
Judge's note: The misspelling is visible in the crop of supp-02 p36. It sits in a free-text COI disclosure field, so it is purely cosmetic.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The SAP fever definition prints "39.0°C/102.1°F", but 39.0°C converts to 102.2°F.
- p. 58 Section 6.6.2, fever definition
39.0°C/102.1°F
Judge's note: The crop confirms '39.0°C/102.1°F'. The paired threshold '38.0°C/100.4°F' is converted exactly, so a rounding-down convention does not explain the 102.1. This is a minor conversion slip in the SAP.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The SAP prints a stray repeated word: "treatment-by-visit interaction visit as fixed effects".
- p. 62
treatment-by-visit interaction visit as fixed effects
Judge's note: The page image shows the phrase as quoted. The trailing 'visit' after 'interaction' is redundant.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Corrected description: the 'log log' text match is extraction of the formula, but the page image shows the whole display equation 10^{Σlog10(vij/vik)/n} = 10^{Σ(log10(vij)−log10(vik))/n} printed twice in a row at the top of SAP p60.
- p. 62
ik ij n i ik ij 1 10 10 1 10 log log log 10 10 ( ) ( )
Judge's note: In the formula itself, 'log' is not repeated: log10(vij)−log10(vik) is correct. However, the page image (supp-04 p62, printed p60) shows the identical display equation rendered twice. That duplication is a cosmetic defect.
Second check: code check
Report a problem with this finding
Typo In "where, for n subjects, vij vij and vik vik are observed immunogenicity titers", each symbol vij and vik is visibly rendered twice (once inline and once raised).
- p. 62
10 10 where, for n subjects, ijv ijv and ikv ikv are obs
Judge's note: The page image confirms a doubled rendering of both symbols, probably an overlaid equation object. This is a cosmetic typesetting defect, not an extraction artefact.
Second check: code check
Report a problem with this finding
Typo SAP typo: "makes use of baseline subjection information" should read "subject information".
- p. 68
makes use of baseline subjection information
Judge's note: The page image shows 'subjection' as quoted.
Second check: none (judge only)