Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between the derivation of bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in 1921 and the lyophilization of BCG daughter strains in the 1960s, a number of clinical trials were performed looking at the protective efficacy of BCG vaccination against tuberculosis. These trials differed from one another in a number of ways: they employed different methodologies for delivering the vaccine and interpreting outcomes; they were performed on populations with different genetic backgrounds and different levels of exposure to environmental Mycobacteria; and, finally, they used different BCG vaccine strains. The results of these trials were estimates of protective efficacy against pulmonary tuberculosis ranging from about 80% to nil. Because of the differences in outcomes and confounding variables, it is difficult to conclude whether differences in interventions alone may have contributed to the remarkably variable results. Analysis of BCG vaccines used in clinical trials suggests a trend towards decreasing efficacy with increased passage in the laboratory; however, trials that used relatively "older" BCG strains were generally performed at different sites than trials which used "younger" BCG strains. Genomic analysis of BCG vaccines demonstrates that during the half-century of ongoing passage of BCG vaccines in vitro there have been numerous genetic changes, comprising single nucleotide polymorphisms, duplications and deletions. The impact of these changes in the BCG genome on the protective efficacy observed in field trials remains to be determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".