MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009353282 · doi:10.1196/annals.1409.012

Vaccines Against <i>Francisella Tularensis</i>

2007· review· en· W2009353282 on OpenAlexaff
J. Wayne Conlan, Petra C. F. Oyston

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaInstitute for Biological Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrancisella tularensisTularemiaFrancisellaLicensureAttenuated vaccineBiological warfareVirologyVirulencePathogenBiologyMicrobiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Francisella tularensis is one of the most pathogenic pathogens known, especially when disseminated as a small particle aerosol. Because of this, it was developed into a biological warfare agent by several states during the 20th century. Nowadays, concerns remain about the potential of this pathogen to cause widespread disease, tularemia, in the hands of terrorists. This has resurrected interest in methods to combat it. This article reviews the current status of vaccine development efforts against tularemia. To date most of our understanding of tularemia vaccine efficacy has been derived from the clinical and experimental use of a pragmatically attenuated live vaccine strain of F. tularensis subspecies holarctica. However, this vaccine which has been in existence for more than 50 years is still beset by regulatory issues that continue to hamper its licensure. These issues and possible solutions are highlighted, along with more modern molecular approaches to vaccine development against this highly virulent pathogen.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations96
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207