Summary and Recommendations from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Workshop “Gonorrhea Vaccines: the Way Forward”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There is an urgent need for the development of an antigonococcal vaccine due to the increasing drug resistance found in this pathogen. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have identified multidrug-resistant gonococci (GC) as among 3 "urgent" hazard-level threats to the U.S. POPULATION: In light of this, on 29 to 30 June 2015, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) sponsored a workshop entitled "Gonorrhea Vaccines: the Way Forward." The goal of the workshop was to gather leaders in the field to discuss several key questions on the current status of gonorrhea vaccine research and the path forward to a licensed gonorrhea vaccine. Representatives from academia, industry, U.S. Government agencies, and a state health department were in attendance. This review summarizes each of the 4 scientific sessions and a series of 4 breakout sessions that occurred during the one and a half days of the workshop. Topics raised as high priority for future development included (i) reinvigoration of basic research to understand gonococcal infection and immunity to allow intervention in processes essential for infection; (ii) clinical infection studies to establish parallels and distinctions between in vitro and animal infection models versus natural human genital and pharyngeal infection and to inform in silico modeling of vaccine impact; and (iii) development of an integrated pipeline for preclinical and early clinical evaluation and direct comparisons of potential vaccine antigens and adjuvants and routes of delivery.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.029 |
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".