In search of acceptable alternatives to the murine histamine sensitisation test (HIST): what is possible and practical?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 'International Workshop on Alternatives to the Murine Histamine Sensitization Test for Acellular Pertussis Vaccines: In Search of Acceptable Alternatives to the Murine Histamine Sensitization Test (HIST): What is Possible and Practical?' was held on 4 and 5 March 2015 in London, United Kingdom. Participants discussed the results of the data generated from an international collaborative study (BSP114 Phase 2) sponsored by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Health Care (EDQM) to determine if a modified Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cell-based clustering assay is a suitable alternative to replace HIST. Workshop participants agreed that protocol transferability demonstrated in the collaborative study indicates that a standardised CHO cell assay is adequate for measuring pure PTx in reference preparations. However, vaccine manufacturers would still need to demonstrate that the method is valid to detect or measure residual PTx in their specific adjuvanted products. The 2 modified CHO cell protocols included in the study (the Direct and the Indirect Methods) deserve further consideration as alternatives to HIST. Using the CHO cell assay, an in vitro alternative, for acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine batch release testing would reduce the number of animals used for aP vaccine safety testing. A strategic, stepwise adoption plan was proposed, in which the alternative test would be used for release purposes first, and then, once sufficient confidence in its suitable performance has been gained, its use would be extended to stability testing.
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 | 0.098 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".