MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146032051 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1049780

Is a multivalent hand, foot, and mouth disease vaccine feasible?

2015· review· en· W2146032051 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Klein, Pele Chong

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Immunology Research
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterovirus 71Foot-and-mouth diseaseAseptic meningitisCoxsackievirusMedicineEnterovirusVirologyInactivated vaccineEchovirusPediatricsImmunologyVirusMeningitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enterovirus A infections are the primary cause of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) in infants and young children. Although enterovirus 71 (EV-A71) and coxsackievirus A16 (CV-A16) are the predominant causes of HFMD epidemics worldwide, EV-A71 has emerged as a major neurovirulent virus responsible for severe neurological complications and fatal outcomes. HFMD is a serious health threat and economic burden across the Asia-Pacific region. Inactivated EV-A71 vaccines have elicited protection against EV-A71 but not against CV-A16 infections in large efficacy trials. The current development of a bivalent inactivated EV-A71/CV-A16 vaccine is the next step toward that of multivalent HFMD vaccines. These vaccines should ultimately include other prevalent pathogenic coxsackieviruses A (CV-A6 and CV-A10), coxsackieviruses B (B3 and B5) and echovirus 30 that often co-circulate during HFMD epidemics and can cause severe HFMD, aseptic meningitis and acute viral myocarditis. The prospect and challenges for the development of such multivalent vaccines are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations78
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicViral Infections and Immunology ResearchFrench-language works237,207