Vaccines and vaccination strategies against human cutaneous leishmaniasis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One might think that the development of a vaccine against cutaneous leishmaniasis would be relatively straightforward because the type of immune response required for protection is known and natural immunity occurs following recovery from primary infection. However, there is as yet no effective vaccine against the disease in humans. Although vaccination in murine studies has yielded promising results, these vaccines have failed miserably when tested in primates or humans. The reasons behind these failures are unknown and remain a major hurdle for vaccine design and development against cutaneous leishmaniasis. In contrast, recovery from natural, deliberate or experimental infections results in development of long-lasting immunity to re-infection. This so called infection-induced resistance is the strongest anti-Leishmania immunity known. Here, we briefly review the different approaches to vaccination against cutaneous leishmaniasis and argue that vaccines composed of genetically modified (attenuated) parasites, which induce immunity akin to infection-induced resistance, may provide best protection against cutaneous leishmaniasis in humans.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it