Evaluation of a primary course of H9N2 vaccine with or without AS03 adjuvant in adults: A phase I/II randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Avian influenza A H9N2 strains have pandemic potential. Methods In this randomized, observer-blind study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01659086), 420 healthy adults, 18–64 years of age, received 1 of 10 H9N2 inactivated split-virus vaccination regimens (30 participants per group), or saline placebo (120 participants). H9N2 groups received 2 doses (days 0, 21) of 15 µg hemagglutinin (HA) without adjuvant, or 1.9 µg HA + AS03 A , 1.9 µg HA + AS03 B , 3.75 µg HA + AS03 A , or 3.75 µg HA + AS03 B ; followed by the same H9N2 formulation or placebo (day 182). AS03 is an adjuvant system containing α-tocopherol (AS03 A : 11.86 mg; AS03 B : 5.93 mg) and squalene in an oil-in-water emulsion. Immunogenicity (hemagglutination inhibition [HI] and microneutralization assays) and safety were assessed up to day 546. Results All adjuvanted formulations exceeded regulatory immunogenicity criteria at days 21 and 42 (HI assay), with seroprotection and seroconversion rates of ≥94.9% and ≥89.8% at day 21, and 100% and ≥98.1% at day 42. Immunogenicity criteria were also met for unadjuvanted vaccine, with lower geometric mean titers. In groups administered a third vaccine dose (day 182), an anamnestic immune response was elicited with robust increases in HI and microneutralization titers. Injection site pain was reported more frequently with adjuvanted vaccines. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions All H9N2 vaccine formulations were immunogenic with a clinically acceptable safety profile; adjuvanted formulations were 4–8 times dose-sparing (3.75–1.9 vs 15 µg HA). Trial registration Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01659086.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".