MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076503830 · doi:10.1017/s1466252307001338

<i>Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae</i>vaccines: from bacterins to new insights into vaccination strategies

2008· review· en· W2076503830 on OpenAlexaff
Mahendrasingh Ramjeet, Vincent Deslandes, Julien Gouré, Mario Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActinobacillus pleuropneumoniaeVaccinationPleuropneumoniaMedicineImmunologySerotypeVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the growing emergence of antibiotic resistance and rising consumer demands concerning food safety, vaccination to prevent bacterial infections is of increasing relevance. Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae is the etiological agent of porcine pleuropneumonia, a respiratory disease leading to severe economic losses in the swine industry. Despite all the research and trials that were performed with A. pleuropneumoniae vaccination in the past, a safe vaccine that offers complete protection against all serotypes has yet not reached the market. However, recent advances made in the identification of new potential vaccine candidates and in the targeting of specific immune responses, give encouraging vaccination perspectives. Here, we review past and current knowledge on A. pleuropneumoniae vaccines as well as the newly available genomic tools and vaccination strategies that could be useful in the design of an efficient vaccine against A. pleuropneumoniae infection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations128
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207