MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087289616 · doi:10.1586/erv.11.88

Optimizing vaccine-induced CD8<sup>+</sup>T-cell immunity: focus on recombinant adenovirus vectors

2011· review· en· W2087289616 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Bassett, Stephanie L. Swift, Jonathan L. Bramson

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD8VirologyCytotoxic T cellBiologyImmunologyPopulationT cellMemory T cellViral vectorAdenoviridaeAntigenTransgeneGenetic enhancementRecombinant DNAImmune systemMedicineIn vitroGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombinant adenoviruses have emerged as promising viral vectors for CD8(+) T-cell vaccines. Our studies have indicated that unlike most acute infections, the CD8(+) T-cell memory population elicited by recombinant human adenovirus serotype 5 (rHuAd5) displays a dominant effector memory phenotype. Persistent, low-level transgene expression from the rHuAd5 vector sustains the CD8(+) T-cell memory population and a nonhematopoietic cell compartment appears to be involved in long-term presentation of adenoviral antigens. Although we are beginning to learn more about the factors that control the maintenance and functionality of memory CD8(+) T cells, we do not yet fully understand what comprises a protective CD8(+) T-cell response. Results from upcoming Phase II clinical trials will be important for determining whether rHuAd5 T-cell vaccines are effective in humans and should help identify correlates of CD8(+) T-cell protection.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207