Safety and Immunogenicity of Glycoprotein D--Adjuvant Genital Herpes Vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two previous trials have suggested that a herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 2 glycoprotein D (gD) vaccine combined with the adjuvants alum and 3'-O-deacylated-monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) is well tolerated and provides protection against genital herpes disease in women with no preexisting HSV antibody. METHODS: The safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine were evaluated in a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The effects of sex and preexisting HSV immunity were sought. RESULTS: When solicited symptoms that continued after the initial 4 days of observation were excluded, the incidence of unsolicited symptoms occurring during the 7 months after vaccination (the primary analysis period) was 22.1% in vaccine recipients and 21.9% in placebo recipients. Significant increases in the number of local and systemic symptoms were found in vaccine recipients within 4 days after vaccination. However, most symptoms were mild to moderate in severity and were short lived. Women reported symptoms more frequently than did men, but preexisting immunity had little effect. The vaccine induced higher titers of HSV gD antibody on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays than did natural infection with HSV. CONCLUSION: The vaccine was generally safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".