MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136395496 · doi:10.1079/ahr2005110

Plant-made vaccines: biotechnology and immunology in animal health

2005· review· en· W2136395496 on OpenAlexaff
Janet A Rice, W. M. Ainley, P E Shewen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntigenImmune systemImmunologyBiologyBiotechnologyComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of plants as production systems for vaccine antigens has been actively investigated over the last 15 years. The original research focused on the value of this expression system for oral delivery based on the hypothesis that plant-expressed antigens would be more stable within the digestive tract and would allow for the use of the oral route of administration to stimulate a mucosal immune response. However, while first conceived for utility via the oral route, plant-made antigens have also been studied as classical immunogens delivered via a needle to model animal systems. Antigens have been expressed in a number of whole plant and cell culture systems. Several alternative expression platforms have been developed to increase expression of antigens or to elicit preferred immunological responses. The biotechnological advances in plant expression and the immunological testing of these antigens will be reviewed in this paper focusing primarily on diseases of livestock and companion animals.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicTransgenic Plants and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207