MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015003861 · doi:10.1139/w05-079

Genetic and antigenic analysis of<i>Bordetella pertussis</i>isolates recovered from clinical cases in Ontario, Canada, before and after the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine

2005· article· en· W2015003861 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Raymond S. W. Tsang, Michelle L. Sill, Irene Martín, Frances Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPertactinBordetella pertussisBiologyPertussis toxinSerotypeGenetic analysisVirologyPulsed-field gel electrophoresisMicrobiologyPertussis vaccineGenetic variationGenetic divergenceGenotypeGenetic diversityAntigenGeneGeneticsImmunizationMedicineBacteriaPopulationG protein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixty-eight Bordetella pertussis isolates (obtained between 1994 and 2004 from the province of Ontario in Canada) were compared by the following phenotypic and genetic analyses: serotyping; pulsed-field gel electrophoresis; and partial DNA sequence analysis of their pertactin, pertussis toxin, and fimbriae genes. Although temporal genetic variations were observed among the isolates, which is consistent with the current view that B. pertussis evolves over time, no specific antigenic or genetic type was detected in 48 isolates collected shortly after the introduction of the acellular pertussis vaccine. Further surveillance with clinical data and isolates collected periodically will be required to ensure that any genetic divergence that could affect vaccine efficacy will not be occurring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207