MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155721781 · doi:10.1586/erv.09.18

Quadrivalent meningococcal ACYW-135 glycoconjugate vaccine for broader protection from infancy

2009· review· en· W2155721781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Pace

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Vaccines · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeisseria meningitidisMeningococcal diseaseGlycoconjugateMedicineMeningococcal vaccineVaccinationImmunologyDiseaseVirologyImmunizationBiologyAntigenInternal medicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive meningococcal disease is a global public-health concern, with infants and adolescents bearing the majority of the disease burden. Vaccination is the most rational strategy to prevent meningococcal disease. Control of serogroup C disease has largely been achieved by the introduction of glycoconjugate meningococcal C vaccines, initially in the UK in 1999, and subsequently in several other countries. The recent licensure of a quadrivalent glycoconjugate vaccine against serogroups A, C, Y and W-135 in the USA and Canada has broadened protection against Neisseria meningitidis in 2-55 year olds. The investigational quadrivalent meningococcal serogroup A, C, Y and W-135 glycoconjugate vaccine (MenACYW-CRM197), which is immunogenic from infancy, has the potential to extend protection to the most vulnerable age group. This article discusses this novel quadrivalent vaccine formulation and its potential to control invasive disease caused by N. meningitidis serogroups A, C, Y and W-135.

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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of VaccinesSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207