Immunogenicity and safety of purified chick-embryo cell rabies vaccine under Zagreb 2-1-1 or 5-dose Essen regimen in Chinese children 6 to 17 years old and adults over 50 years: A randomized open-label study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this Phase IIIb, open-label, randomized study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of immune responses and to assess the safety of a purified chick-embryo cell rabies vaccine (PCECV) in healthy Chinese children (6 to 17 years) and older adults (≥51 years) following 2 alternative intramuscular (IM) simulated post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) regimens: 4-dose Zagreb or 5-dose Essen regimen. Serum samples were collected prior to vaccination on Days 1 and 15 and on day 43 to assess immune response by rabies virus neutralizing antibody (RVNA) concentrations. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were recorded for up to 7 days following each vaccine dose, and unsolicited AEs throughout the entire study period. PCECV vaccination induced a strong immune response at Day 15, and the non-inferiority in immune response of the Zagreb vs. the Essen regimen was demonstrated in children and older adults. At Day 15,100% of children (N = 224), and 99% of subjects ≥51 years of age (N = 376) developed adequate RVNA concentrations (≥0.5 IU/mL); at Day 43 all subjects achieved RVNA concentrations ≥0.5 IU/mL, for both PEP regimens. The well-known tolerability and safety profile of the PCECV was again observed in this study following either Zagreb or Essen regimens. Rabies PEP vaccination with PCECV following a Zagreb regimen induced immune responses non-inferior to those of the Essen regimen, and had a similar safety and tolerability profile to the Essen regimen in Chinese children, adolescents, and adults over 51 years. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01680016.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".