Poxvirus vector-based HIV vaccines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we will provide the scientific rationale for the use of poxvirus vectors in the field of HIV vaccines, the immunological profile of the vaccine-induced immune responses, an update on the current use of poxvirus vector-based vaccines in HIV vaccine clinical trials, and the development of new modified poxvirus vectors with improved immunological profile. RECENT FINDINGS: An Ad5-HIV vaccine was tested in a phase IIb clinical trial (known as the Step trial). Vaccinations in the Step trial were discontinued because the vaccine did not show any effect on acquisition of infection and on viral load. After the disappointing failure of the Step trial, the field of HIV vaccine has regained enthusiasm and vigour due to the promising protective effect observed in the phase III efficacy trial (known as RV-144) performed in Thailand which has tested a poxvirus-gp120 combination. SUMMARY: The RV-144 phase III has provided for the first time evidence that an HIV vaccine can prevent HIV infection. The results from the RV-144 trial are providing the scientific rationale for the future development of the HIV vaccine field and for designing future efficacy trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".