Immunogenicity comparison of interferon beta-1a preparations using the BALB/c mouse model: assessment of a new formulation for use in multiple sclerosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The in vivo immunogenicity of a new interferon (IFN) beta-1a product (Rebif New Formulation; RNF) was compared with that of two approved recombinant human IFN beta-1a products (Rebif and Avonex). Immunogenic potential was assessed based on time to development of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and NAb titer. Female BALB/c mice (six in each group) received RNF, Rebif or Avonex (1.0 microg/mL subcutaneously three times weekly), and serum samples collected on Days 7, 21, and 35 (Study 1), or 28, 42, 49, and 60 (Study 2) were assayed for NAbs. In Study 1, no mice had NAbs at Day 7, but by Day 21 one mouse in the RNF group had NAbs, compared with three and four mice in the Rebif and Avonex groups, respectively. Results were similar in Study 2. All control mice were NAb negative; all actively treated mice had NAbs by day 35 or 42. Throughout Study 1, NAb titers were lowest in the RNF group and highest in the Avonex group, and at day 35, NAb titers were significantly lower in the RNF group than the Rebif group (p = 0.037). Results indicate that, on a gram-for-gram basis, RNF appears less immunogenic than Rebif or Avonex.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".