MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104841713 · doi:10.1586/14760584.4.1.103

Hydatid disease: vaccinology and development of the EG95 recombinant vaccine

2005· review· en· W2104841713 on OpenAlexaff
Charles G. Gauci, David Heath, Conan Chow, Marshall W. Lightowlers

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic infections in humans and animals
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsDiseaseEchinococcus granulosusMedicineDeveloping countryEchinococcosisTransmission (telecommunications)Parasitic diseaseImmunologyVirologyIntensive care medicineBiologyPathologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydatid disease is a zoonotic parasitic disease that is distributed widely around the world and causes substantial human morbidity and mortality, particularly in developing countries. Reduction of human hydatid disease using anthelmintics, together with changes in human lifestyle and animal management practices, have been unsuccessful in some developing countries where the disease still persists. Substantial progress has been made towards developing a practical, recombinant vaccine in sheep, to interrupt the lifecycle of Echinococcus granulosus and to prevent subsequent transmission from dogs to humans. This review focuses on the scientific advances in the development of a recombinant vaccine for hydatid disease and the remaining challenges facing the widespread use of the vaccine for control of hydatid disease in endemic areas.

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 score0.006

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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations73
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicParasitic infections in humans and animalsFrench-language works237,207