Efficacy of a cold‐adapted, intranasal, equine influenza vaccine: challenge trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomised, controlled, double-blind, influenza virus, aerosol challenge of horses was undertaken to determine the efficacy of a cold-adapted, temperature sensitive, modified-live virus, intranasal, equine influenza vaccine. Ninety 11-month-old influenza-naïve foals were assigned randomly to 3 groups (20 vaccinates and 10 controls per group) and challenged 5 weeks, 6 and 12 months after a single vaccination. Challenges were performed on Day 0 in a plastic-lined chamber. Between Days 1 and 10, animals were examined daily for evidence of clinical signs of influenza. Nasal swabs for virus isolation were obtained on Day 1 and Days 1 to 8 and blood samples for serology were collected on Days 1, 7 and 14. There was no adverse response to vaccination in any animal. Following challenge at 5 weeks and 6 months, vaccinates had significantly lower clinical scores (P = 0.0001 and 0.005, respectively), experienced smaller increases in rectal temperature (P = 0.0008 and 0.0007, respectively) and shed less virus (P<0.0001 and P = 0.03, respectively) over fewer days (P<0.0001 and P = 0.002, respectively) than did the controls. After the 12 month challenge, rectal temperatures (P = 0.006) as well as the duration (P = 0.03) and concentration of virus shed (P = 0.04) were significantly reduced among vaccinated animals. The results of this study showed that 6 months after a single dose of vaccine the duration and severity of clinical signs were markedly reduced amongst vaccinated animals exposed to a severe live-virus challenge. Appropriate use of this vaccine should lead to a marked reduction in the frequency, severity and duration of outbreaks of equine influenza in North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".