MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982134424 · doi:10.1586/erv.13.9

Carbohydrate-based<i>Clostridium difficile</i>vaccines

2013· review· en· W1982134424 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mário A. Monteiro, Zuchao Ma, Lisa Bertolo, Yuening Jiao, Luis G. Arroyo, Douglas C. Hodgins, Michael Mallozzi, Gayatri Vedantam, Martin Sagermann, John S. Sundsmo, H. S. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunogenicityClostridium difficileMicrobiologyEpitopeGlycanAntibodyBiologyPolysaccharideVirologyAntigenImmunologyBiochemistryGlycoproteinAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clostridium difficile is responsible for thousands of deaths each year and a vaccine would be welcomed, especially one that would disrupt bacterial maintenance, colonization and persistence in carriers and convalescent patients. Structural explorations at the University of Guelph (ON, Canada) discovered that C. difficile may express three phosphorylated polysaccharides, named PSI, PSII and PSIII; this review captures our recent efforts to create vaccines based on these glycans, especially PSII, the common antigen that has precipitated immediate attention. The authors describe the design and immunogenicity of vaccines composed of raw polysaccharides and conjugates thereof. So far, it has been observed that anti-PSII antibodies can be raised in farm animals, mice and hamster models; humans and horses carry anti-PSII IgA and IgG antibodies from natural exposure to C. difficile, respectively; phosphate is an indispensable immunogenic epitope and vaccine-induced PSII antibodies recognize PSII on C. difficile outer surface.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207