MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167602597 · doi:10.2217/fmb.15.91

The Multicomponent Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccine (4CMenB): Origin, Composition, Health Impact and Unknown Aspects

2015· review· en· W2167602597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chiara Mameli, Erica Galli, Valentina Fabiano, Gianvincenzo Zuccotti

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Microbiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeningococcal vaccineImmunogenicityNeisseria meningitidisMeningococcal diseaseMedicineCarriageImmunizationVirologyImmunologyAntibodyBiologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B is the main cause for meningococcal invasive disease in many parts of the world. Since 2013, a new multicomponent vaccine against meningococcal serogroup B (4CMenB) has been licensed in Europe, Australia, Canada, Chile, Uruguay, USA and Brazil with different immunization schedules. Clinical trials involving adults, adolescents, children and infants showed 4CMenB has a good immunogenicity and safety profile. Strain coverage estimates are similar to or better than other recently approved vaccines, ranging from 66% in Canada to 91% in Unites States. Some points still remain to be clarified such as the best immunization strategy, the effect of 4CMenB on carriage, the long-term persistence of protective bactericidal antibodies titers, long-term safety outcomes, the possible emergence of N. meningitidis escape mutants and the vaccine cost-effectiveness. In this review, we focus on the vaccine composition, clinical trials and suggested schedules, safety data, potential strain coverage and future challenges.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207