Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rational design of a successful vaccination strategy against tuberculosis requires certain kinds of information and must take account of several considerations: (i) the nature of the immune response that protects the large majority of individuals infected by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, designated as healthy contacts, must be defined and distinguished from that in tuberculosis patients, whose immune system must have failed; (ii) the vaccination strategy must incorporate a way of priming the immune system to guarantee in all individuals this protective response, normally generated in healthy contacts, upon natural infection by M. tuberculosis; (iii) the strategy must incorporate a mechanism for ensuring that the effectiveness of this priming is not abrogated by exposure to environmental mycobacteria; and (iv) the strategy must take account of the fact that the vaccinated population is genetically heterogeneous, and that individuals will therefore respond variably to most standard vaccination protocols. We describe a tentative proposal for how these interrelated problems might be solved and discuss predictions of this tentative vaccination strategy. Critical testing of the neonatal, low-dose BCG vaccination strategy can only be achieved by a field trial and we outline the considerations underlying this proposal.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".