Protocol of a randomised controlled trial characterising the immune responses induced by varicella-zoster virus (VZV) vaccination in healthy Kenyan women: setting the stage for a potential VZV-based HIV vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A protective HIV vaccine would be expected to induce durable effector immune responses at the mucosa, restricting HIV infection at its portal of entry. We hypothesise that use of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) as an HIV delivery vector could generate sustained and robust tissue-based immunity against HIV antigens to provide long-term protection against HIV. Given that HIV uniquely targets immune-activated T cells, the development of human vaccines against HIV must also involve a specific examination of the safety of the vector. Thus, we aim to evaluate the effects of VZV vaccination on the recipients’ immune activation state, and on VZV-specific circulating humoral and cellular responses in addition to those at the cervical and rectal mucosa. Methods and analysis This open-label, randomised, longitudinal crossover study includes healthy Kenyan VZV-seropositive women at low risk for HIV infection. Participants receive a single dose of a commercial live-attenuated VZVOkavaccine at either week 0 (n=22) or at week 12 (n=22) of the study and are followed for 48 and 36 weeks postvaccination, respectively. The primary outcome is the change on cervical CD4+T-cell immune activation measured by the coexpression of CD38 and HLA-DR 12 weeks postvaccination compared with the baseline (prevaccination). Secondary analyses include postvaccination changes in VZV-specific mucosal and systemic humoral and cellular immune responses, changes in cytokine and chemokine measures, study acceptability and feasibility of mucosal sampling and a longitudinal assessment of the bacterial community composition of the mucosa. Ethics and dissemination The study has ethical approval from Kenyatta National Hospital/University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee, the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and by Kenyan Pharmacy and Poisons Board. Results will be presented at conferences, disseminated to participants and stakeholders as well as published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT02514018. Pre-results.
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 | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.006 |
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".