Adenoviral Vectors for Mucosal Vaccination Against Infectious Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adenoviral vector has been extensively studied as a vaccine platform because of its ability to induce potent cellular and humoral immunity. One main advantage of adenoviral vectors is their natural tropism for mucosal surfaces, which makes them ideal for the purpose of mucosal vaccination against pathogens that preferentially initiate infection at the mucosal site. The current understanding of mucosal immunity suggests that mucosal vaccination is far superior to parenteral vaccination in protecting mucosal surfaces. Mucosal vaccination is particularly relevant to those infections for which parenteral immunization strategies have failed to confer protection. This review examines the use of adenoviral vector at mucosal sites for infectious disease against which the current vaccination strategies have been unsuccessful in eliciting protection. Data from animal models have suggested that adenoviral vectors are effective in protecting against infections caused by HIV, herpes simplex virus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. We believe that these encouraging results will lead to further evaluation in clinical trials in the near future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".