Assessment of the Efficacy of Commercially Available and Candidate Vaccines against a Pandemic H1N1 2009 Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The emergence and global spread of the pandemic H1N1 2009 influenza virus have raised questions regarding the protective effect of available seasonal vaccines and the efficacy of a newly produced matched vaccine. METHODS: Ferrets were immunized with the 2008-2009 formulations of commercially available live attenuated (FluMist; MedImmune) or split-inactivated (Fluviral; GlaxoSmithKline) vaccines, a commercial swine vaccine (FluSure; Pfizer), or a laboratory-produced matched inactivated whole-virus vaccine (A/Mexico/InDRE4487/2009). Adaptive immune responses were monitored, and the animals were challenged with A/Mexico/InDRE4487/2009 after 5 weeks. RESULTS: Only animals that received the swine or matched vaccines developed detectable hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies against the challenge virus, whereas a T cell response was exclusively detected in animals vaccinated with FluMist. After challenge, all animals had high levels of virus replication in the upper respiratory tract. However, preexisting anti-pandemic H1N1 2009 antibodies resulted in reduced clinical signs and improved survival. Surprisingly, FluMist was associated with a slight increase in mortality and greater lung damage, which correlated with early up-regulation of interleukin-10. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that a single dose of matched inactivated vaccine confers partial protection against a pandemic H1N1 2009 virus, and it suggests that a higher dose or prime-boost regimen may be required. The consequences of mismatched immunity to influenza merit further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".