Repeat-Dose Toxicity Study Using the AFPL1-Conjugate Nicotine Vaccine in Male Sprague Dawley Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tobacco smoking is the cause of 20% of Canadian deaths per year. Nicotine vaccines present a promising alternative to traditional smoking cessation products, but to date, no vaccine has been able to move through all phases of clinical trials. We have previously demonstrated that the AFPL1-conjugate nicotine vaccine does not induce systemic or immunotoxicity in a mouse model and that a heterologous vaccination approach is more advantageous than the homologous routes to inducing mucosal and systemic anti-nicotine antibodies. The purpose of this study was to confirm the safety profile of the vaccine in a repeat-dose toxicity study. The heterologous vaccination strategy was again used, and Sprague Dawley rats were administered a dose five times greater than in our previous studies. Physiological conditions, food and water consumption, body temperature, injection site inflammation, relative weights of organs, histopathology, and blood chemistry and hematology were evaluated during the course of the vaccination period to determine the safety of the vaccine. The AFPL1-conjugate nicotine vaccine did not induce clinically relevant changes or induce symptoms that would be associated with toxicity, making it a promising candidate for future investigations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".