Response to experimentally induced infection with bovine respiratory syncytial virus following intranasal vaccination of seropositive and seronegative calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combination modified-live bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) vaccine can stimulate protective immunity in young BRSV-seropositive calves following intranasal (IN) administration. DESIGN: Controlled challenge study. ANIMALS: 66 Holstein bull calves, 3 to 8 days old. PROCEDURES: In experiment 1, BRSV-seropositive and -seronegative calves were vaccinated IN with a commercially available combination modified-live virus vaccine formulated for SC administration; calves underwent BRSV challenge 4.5 months later. In experiment 2, BRSV-seronegative calves were vaccinated IN or SC (to examine the effect of route of administration) with the same combination vaccine that instead had a 1/100 dose of BRSV (to examine the effect of dose); calves underwent BRSV challenge 21 days later. RESULTS: In experiment 1, BRSV challenge resulted in severe respiratory tract disease with low arterial partial pressures of oxygen and lung lesions in most calves from all groups. Maximum change in rectal temperature was significantly greater in seropositive IN vaccinated calves, compared with seronegative IN vaccinated and seropositive control calves. Number of days of BRSV shedding was significantly lower in seronegative IN vaccinated calves than in seropositive IN vaccinated and seropositive control calves. In experiment 2, maximum change in rectal temperature was significantly greater in seronegative control calves, compared with seronegative IN and SC vaccinated calves. Shedding of BRSV was significantly reduced in seronegative IN and SC vaccinated calves, compared with control calves; also, lung lesions were reduced in seronegative IN and SC vaccinated calves. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Maternal antibodies may inhibit priming of protective responses by IN delivered BRSV vaccines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".