Comparative efficacy of an injectable vaccine and an intranasal vaccine in stimulating Bordetella bronchiseptica-reactive antibody responses in seropositive dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare antibody responses to intranasal and SC Bordetella bronchiseptica vaccines in seropositive dogs. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. ANIMALS: 40 young adult Beagles vaccinated against B bronchiseptica. PROCEDURE: Dogs were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups (intranasal vaccine, SC vaccine, intranasal and SC vaccines, no vaccine) and vaccinated on day 0. Serum and salivary B bronchiseptica-reactive antibody responses were measured on days 0 through 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28. RESULTS: Dogs that were vaccinated with the SC vaccine, alone or in combination with the intranasal vaccine, had a significant increase in serum concentration of B bronchiseptica-reactive IgG beginning on day 5 and persisting through day 28. Dogs that were vaccinated with the intranasal vaccine alone had a significant increase in serum concentration of B bronchiseptica-reactive IgG beginning on day 10 and persisting through day 28, but serum IgG concentration in these dogs was significantly less than concentration in dogs that received the SC vaccine. Neither vaccine had a demonstrable effect on salivary concentrations of B bronchiseptica-reactive IgA or IgG. On day 10, all vaccinated groups had significantly higher serum IgA concentrations than did unvaccinated control dogs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that the SC B bronchiseptica vaccine may be used to stimulate antibody responses in seropositive dogs. There was no apparent benefit to administering these vaccines simultaneously. Intranasal vaccines may not be effective for booster vaccination of dogs previously exposed to or immunized against B bronchiseptica. Dogs should be vaccinated at least 5 days prior to exposure to B bronchiseptica.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".