MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552767663 · doi:10.1080/21645515.2016.1252886

Considerations for the rational design of a <i>Chlamydia</i> vaccine

2016· review· en· W2552767663 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Liang, David Bulir, Charu Kaushic, James B. Mahony

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisContext (archaeology)ImmunologyChlamydiaImmunityBiologyVirologyTrachomaMedicineImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chlamydia trachomatis is the leading cause of preventable blindness and the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection. Remarkable progress in vaccine research over the past six decades has led to the advancement of novel C. trachomatis vaccine candidates into clinical trials. However, many questions regarding the role of specific cellular populations and molecular mechanisms in protective immunity against human C. trachomatis genital tract infections remain unanswered. Biomarkers of vaccine induced protective immunity are elusive in humans, while a cautionary message on the translatability of data obtained from current animal models has emanated from vaccine research and development efforts against other important human pathogens. In this commentary, we highlight recent advances in Chlamydia vaccine development and discuss their implications in the context of a rational approach to the design of a human C. trachomatis vaccine.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Vaccines & ImmunotherapeuticsSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207