MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1572685088 · doi:10.18433/j3401k

Overview of Plant-Derived Vaccine Antigens: Dengue Virus

2011· review· en· W1572685088 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ravindra B. Malabadi, Advaita Ganguly, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Archana Parashar, Mavanur R. Suresh, Hoon H. Sunwoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of AlbertaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsDengue feverDengue vaccineDengue virusVirologyAntigenMalariaImmunologyMedicineImmune systemSerotypeVaccinationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review highlights the advantages and current status of plant-derived vaccine development with special reference to the dengue virus. There are numerous problems involved in dengue vaccine development, and there is no vaccine against all four dengue serotypes. Dengue vaccine development using traditional approaches has not been satisfactory in terms of inducing neutralizing antibodies. Recently, these issues were addressed by showing a very good response to inducing neutralizing antibodies by plant-derived dengue vaccine antigens. This indicates the feasibility of using plant-derived vaccine antigens as a low-cost method to combat dengue and other infectious diseases. The application of new methods and strategies such as dendritic cell targeting in cancer therapy, severe acute respiratory syndrome, tuberculosis, human immune deficiency virus, and malaria might play an important role. These new methods are more efficient than traditional protocols. It is expected that in the near future, plant-derived vaccine antigens or antibodies will play an important role in the control of human infectious diseases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.248
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesSame topicTransgenic Plants and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207