MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050533211 · doi:10.2217/17460913.2.6.667

Use of Animal Models in the Development of Human Vaccines

2007· review· en· W2050533211 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

VenueFuture Microbiology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyVirologyBiotechnologyBiochemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 100 years, animal infectious disease research has played a crucial role in the development of human vaccines. In fact, many of today's vaccines are based on utilizing animal pathogens, either in the form of an attenuated vaccine or as a vaccine vector. Vaccine development has become increasingly complex with chronic and newly emerging diseases, a demand for therapeutic vaccines for noninfectious diseases, extended vaccine in the neonate and the elderly, and increasing concerns regarding vaccine safety. Furthermore, the evaluation of quantity and quality of immune responses and the ability to efficiently translate the results of basic research into the clinic are critical to ensure that vaccines meet their therapeutic potential. Here, we review the importance of animal models for developing and testing novel human vaccines, discuss the limitations of existing animal models in knowledge translation, and summarize the needs and criteria for future animal models. We argue that efficient translation of basic vaccine research to clinical therapies will depend upon the availability of appropriate animal models to address each of the questions which arise during vaccine development.

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 score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.224 · 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