MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084817887 · doi:10.1586/14760584.1.3.341

Tuberculosis vaccines: the past, present and future

2002· review· en· W2084817887 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Wang, Zhou Xing

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuberculosisTuberculosis vaccinesImmunologyVaccinationMedicineMycobacterium tuberculosisBCG vaccineImmunityImmunizationImmune systemAntigenMycobacterium bovisVirologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuberculosis still remains a leading infectious cause of death worldwide, although the BCG vaccine has been used for 80 years. There is an urgent need to develop improved BCG or new tuberculosis vaccines. This apparently represents a daunting task, since it will take a long time before a vaccine can be declared to be better than the current BCG vaccine, both in experimental and human studies. The current review takes a brief historic look at the use of current BCG vaccine and provides an overview on what are considered to be the key immunologic criteria that have to be met by a new generation of tuberculosis vaccines. It also provides the most up-to-date information on the latest developments in tuberculosis vaccine research, with a focus on mycobacterial organism-based and Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigen-based vaccines. Consideration is also given to the mucosal route of immunization and 'prime and boost' regimens. This review also presents several important tables, highlighting critical components of antituberculosis immunity, the most commonly tested immune adjuvants, the types of novel tuberculosis antigen-based vaccines and the outcome of different heterologous 'prime and boost' vaccination regimens.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207