Background: In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, various COVID-19 vaccines were administered during the pandemic. However, region-specific real-word comparative data on their immunogenicity remain limited. This study aimed to assess the serological responses to Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), and AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccines in a diverse population living in KSA. Methods: This observational study included 236 adults recruited from vaccination sites in Riyadh. Participants provided serum samples at predefined intervals: before the first dose, after the first dose, after the second dose, and post-vaccination infection (if applicable). IgG and neutralising antibodies were quantified using ELISA assays. Demographic and vaccination data, and their associations with antibody responses, were evaluated. Results: At baseline, 75.4% of participants were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG, suggesting high prior exposure. Marked incremental increases in IgG levels were observed after each vaccine dose. Both Moderna and Pfizer elicited stronger responses, with Pfizer inducing the strongest early response and Moderna achieving the highest overall titres. Among IgG-positive individuals, neutralising antibodies were detected in 98.1%. There were no statistically significant differences by age or gender, although males tended to show higher mean titres. Heterologous vaccine schedules induced comparable or enhanced immunogenicity relative to homologous schedules, supporting their use in flexible immunisation strategies. Conclusions: All COVID-19 vaccines administered in Saudi Arabia elicited robust antibody responses, particularly the mRNA-based vaccines. Our findings support their continued use and justify varied vaccination approaches, including mix-and-match booster strategies, to enhance community immunity.

Background: Diagnostic error is a major source of patient suffering. Researchshows that physicians experience frequent interruptions while being engaged with patients and indicate that diagnostic accuracy may be impaired as a result. Since most studies in the field are observational, there is as yet no evidence suggesting a direct causal link between being interrupted and diagnostic error. Theexperiments reported in this article were intended to assess this hypothesis.Methods: Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that interruptions hurt diagnostic reasoning and increase time on task. In the first experiment (N = 42), internal medicine residents, while diagnosing vignettes of actual clinical cases were interrupted halfway with a task unrelated to medicine, solving word-spotting puzzles and anagrams. In the second experiment (N = 78), the interruptions were medically relevant ones. In the third experiment (N = 30), we put additional time pressure on the participants. In all these experiments, a control group diagnosed the cases without interruption. Dependent variables were diagnostic accuracy and amount of time spent on the vignettes.Results: In none of the experiments interruptions were demonstrated to influence diagnostic accuracy. In Experiment 1: Mean of interrupted group was 0.88 (SD = 0.37) versus non- interrupted group 0.91 (SD = 0.32). In Experiment 2: Mean of interrupted group was 0.95 (SD = 0.32) versus non-interrupted group 0.94 (SD = 0.38). In Experiment 3: Mean of interrupted group was 0.42 (SD = 0.12) versus non-interrupted group 0.37 (SD = 0.08). Although interrupted residents in all experiments needed more time to complete the diagnostic task, only in Experiment 2, this effect was statistically significant.Conclusions: These three experiments, taken together, failed to demonstrate negative effects of interruptions on diagnostic reasoning. Perhaps physicians who are interrupted may still have sufficient cognitive resources available to recover from it most of the time.

Background: Humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 are well documented, yet the immunopathogenic mechanisms distinguishing severe from critical disease remain incompletely defined, particularly in Middle Eastern populations. We investigated antibody responses across levels of clinical severity in a Saudi Arabian cohort. Methods: In this multicentre study, we analysed 406 participants stratified into five clinical groups: controls, asymptomatic, mild, severe, and critically ill requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgM levels were quantified alongside surrogate ACE2-RBD neutralisation activity. Associations between humoral markers, demographic factors, comorbidities, and disease severity were assessed. Results: SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgM levels differed significantly across disease severity groups (p < 0.001), with higher levels observed in groups with greater clinical severity. No significant difference in IgG or IgM levels was observed between the severe and ICU groups (IgG p = 0.384; IgM p = 0.768). While binding antibody levels were associated with severity, surrogate ACE2-RBD neutralising activity did not differ significantly across groups (p = 0.209). Increasing age (χ² = 44.5) and the presence of comorbidities (χ² = 31.9) were associated with more severe clinical categories, whereas sex was not. Conclusions: These findings suggest that antibody levels provide useful information about exposure and immune activation, but antibody quantity alone does not fully explain the transition from severe to critical disease. The results support interpreting serological measures alongside clinical factors such as age and chronic illness.