Comparative efficacy of intranasal and oral vaccines against Bordetella bronchiseptica in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to determine the comparative efficacy of vaccines administered intranasally or orally to protect puppies from disease subsequent to experimental infection with Bordetella bronchiseptica (Bb), a randomized controlled trial was performed using 48 approximately 8-week-old specific pathogen free, Bb naive Beagle puppies. Puppies were randomized into three groups and administered vaccines containing Bb intranasally or orally, or a placebo intranasally. Twenty-one days later, all dogs were challenge exposed via aerosol administration of Bb. Clinical signs, nasal bacterial shedding and immune responses were monitored for 28 days after challenge. Intranasally vaccinated puppies had significantly lower rates of coughing, nasal discharge, retching and sneezing (i.e. were less sick clinically) than control puppies. The distinction between the orally vaccinated puppies and the control puppies was less consistent. The orally vaccinated puppies had less coughing and less retching than the control puppies, but nasal discharge and sneezing did not differ from control animals. Orally vaccinated puppies had higher rates of coughing, nasal discharge, retching and sneezing than the intranasally vaccinated puppies. Although both intranasal and oral Bb vaccines stimulated immune responses associated with disease sparing following Bb infection, the intranasal route of delivery conferred superior clinical outcomes. The observed difference in clinical efficacy suggests the need to question the rationale for the use of currently available orally administered Bb vaccines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".