MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000927427 · doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.02.006

How well do vaccines for Bordetella bronchiseptica work in dogs? A critical review of the literature 1977–2014

2015· review· en· W2000927427 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Veterinary Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBordetella bronchisepticaBordetellaImmunityImmune systemImmunologyMedicineLongevityHerd immunityDiseaseVaccinationBiologyIntensive care medicineBordetella pertussisInternal medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb) has long been causally associated with respiratory disease in dogs. Parenteral and intranasal vaccines for this pathogen have been in common use since their development in the late 1970s and early 1980s and recently a commercial oral Bb vaccine has become available. Overall, the literature (comprising experimental infection models and field studies) documents the efficacy of these vaccines in stimulating disease-sparing mucosal and systemic immune responses that can be associated with reduced growth of Bb in vivo. However, many of the published studies are limited by flaws in experimental design, most notably a failure to consider the biological and statistical implications of the 'pen effect'. Many questions related to the longevity of vaccine induced immunity against Bb and the impact of natural exposure on herd immunity remain unanswered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.290 · 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