Progress in filovirus vaccine development: evaluating the potential for clinical use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marburg and Ebola viruses cause severe hemorrhagic fever in humans and nonhuman primates. Currently, there are no effective treatments and no licensed vaccines; although a number of vaccine platforms have proven successful in animal models. The ideal filovirus vaccine candidate should be able to provide rapid protection following a single immunization, have the potential to work postexposure and be cross-reactive or multivalent against all Marburg virus strains and all relevant Ebola virus species and strains. Currently, there are multiple platforms that have provided prophylactic protection in nonhuman primates, including DNA, recombinant adenovirus serotype 5, recombinant human parainfluenza virus 3 and virus-like particles. In addition, a single platform, recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus, has demonstrated both prophylactic and postexposure protection in nonhuman primates. These results demonstrate that achieving a vaccine that is protective against filoviruses is possible; the challenge now is to prove its safety and efficacy in order to obtain a vaccine that is ready for human use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".