MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764249560 · doi:10.2807/esw.07.09.02170-en

AIDSVAX trial disappointing

2003· article· en· W2764249560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Harris, B. EVANS

Bibliographic record

VenueWeekly releases (1997–2007) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineVaccinationBooster (rocketry)Clinical trialHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Placebo groupHIV vaccineBooster doseDemographyVaccine trialFamily medicineInternal medicineImmunizationImmunologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trial results from AIDSVAX, the first AIDS vaccine to undergo phase III testing, were published this week and were disappointing. The overall efficacy of the vaccine was just 3.8% (1). The trial was conducted over three years and involved 5417 volunteers from the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and the Netherlands. Volunteers from high risk groups were given three vaccinations at three monthly intervals and a booster vaccination given every six months. The volunteers were split into two groups. One received a placebo and the other was given the vaccine. Twice the numbers of volunteers were vaccinated as those receiving the placebo. For those people who became HIV infected, over the three years, 5.7% were vaccinated and 5.8% received the placebo. The trial participants were counselled in safer sex and were told not to rely on the vaccine to prevent HIV transmission.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeekly releases (1997–2007)Same topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207