Efficacy of Fostera PRRS modified live virus vaccine against a Canadian heterologous virulent field strain of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccination is a useful option to control infection with porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), and several modified live-PRRSV vaccines have been developed. These vaccines have shown some efficacy in reducing the incidence and severity of clinical disease as well as the duration of viremia and virus shedding but have failed to provide sterilizing immunity. The efficacy of modified live-virus (MLV) vaccines is greater against a homologous strain compared with heterologous PRRSV strains. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Fostera PRRS MLV vaccine in protecting against challenge with a heterologous field strain widely circulating in the swine herds of eastern Canada. Forty-six piglets were divided into 4 groups: nonvaccinated-nonchallenged; nonvaccinated-challenged; vaccinated-challenged; and vaccinated-nonchallenged. The animals were vaccinated at 23 d of age with Fostera PRRS and challenged 23 d later with a heterologous field strain of PRRSV (FMV12-1425619). Overall, the vaccine showed some beneficial effects in the challenged animals by reducing the severity of clinical signs and the viral load. A significant difference between nonvaccinated and vaccinated animals was detected for some parameters starting 11 to 13 d after challenge, which suggested that the cell-mediated immune response or other delayed responses could be more important than pre-existing PRRSV antibodies in vaccinated animals within the context of protection against heterologous strains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".