MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134227555 · doi:10.1586/erv.11.179

A strategy to simultaneously eradicate the natural reservoirs of rabies and Ebola virus

2012· letter· en· W2134227555 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Wong, Gary Kobinger

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologyRabies virusEbola virusRabiesEbola vaccineEbolavirusVirusBiologyRhabdoviridaeVaccinationMononegaviralesViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaluation of: Blaney JE, Wirblich C, Papaneri AB et al. Inactivated or live-attenuated bivalent vaccines that confer protection against rabies and Ebola viruses. J. Virol. 85(20), 10605–10616 (2011).The efficacy of a recombinant live-attenuated or chemically inactivated bivalent vaccine against rabies virus (RABV) and Ebola virus (EBOV) infection was evaluated in a lethal mouse model of infection. The vaccines were derived from the live-attenuated Street Alabama Dufferin B19 RABV platform already approved for veterinary use, where intramuscular, intranasal and intraperitoneal administration of the recombinant vaccines were avirulent in adult mice. Significant levels of serum RABV- and EBOV-specific antibodies were observed postvaccination, with levels that correlated with protection in vaccinated mice post-RABV or -EBOV challenge. These results justify further studies in guinea pigs and nonhuman primates, and highlight a promising strategy to eradicate the natural reservoirs of RABV and EBOV.

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)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0120.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207