MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Engineered Nanoparticle Applications for Recombinant Influenza Vaccines

2020· review· en· W3046343760 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary R. Sia, Matthew S. Miller, Jonathan F. Lovell

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Pharmaceutics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesOffice of the DirectorNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImmunogenicityVirologyAntigenRecombinant DNAVirusPandemicNanomedicineAntigenic driftVirus-like particleBiologyInfluenza A virusImmunologyMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NanoparticleNanotechnologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)GeneMaterials scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influenza viruses cause seasonal epidemics and represent a pandemic risk. With current vaccine methods struggling to protect populations against emerging strains, there is a demand for a next-generation flu vaccine capable of providing broad protection. Recombinant biotechnology, combined with nanomedicine techniques, could address this demand by increasing immunogenicity and directing immune responses toward conserved antigenic targets on the virus. Various nanoparticle candidates have been tested for use in vaccines, including virus-like particles, protein and carbohydrate nanoconstructs, antigen-carrying lipid particles, and synthetic and inorganic particles modified for antigen presentation. These methods have yielded some promising results, including protection in animal models against antigenically distinct influenza strains, production of antibodies with broad reactivity, and activation of potent T cell responses. Based on the evidence of current research, it is feasible that the next generation of influenza vaccines will combine recombinant antigens with nanoparticle carriers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.237
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular PharmaceuticsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207