Comparison of the BVDV, BHV-1, and BRSV anamnestic response to modified-live or inactivated vaccines in calves previously vaccinated with a modified-live virus vaccine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the serological responses in cattle initially vaccinated with a modified-live virus (MLV) vaccine containing infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) virus, parainfluenza-3 (PI3) virus, bovine viral diarrhoea virus type 1 (BVDV1), bovine viral diarrhoea virus type 2 (BVDV2), and bovine respiratory syncytial (BRS) virus antigens, and subsequently re-vaccinated with either the same MLV vaccine or inactivated vaccine with oil adjuvants, containing the same viral antigens. A group of 145 nursing calves received an MLV vaccine containing IBR, PI3, BVDV1, BVDV2, and BRSV at one to two months of age. The calves were re-vaccinated with the same MLV vaccine at weaning, three-and-a-half months later. Approximately five months later, 45 of these animals were randomly selected and assigned to one of three treatment groups. Twenty calves received inactivated vaccine with oil adjuvants (IBR, PI3, BVDV1, BVDV2, BRSV); 20 received the same MLV vaccine that they had received as calves (IBR, PI3, BVDV1, BVDV2, BRSV); and five controls received the MLV sterile diluent. Following final vaccination, the animals receiving the inactivated vaccine with oil adjuvants had the highest titre response (P<0.05) for IBRV, BRSV, BVDV1, and BVDV2.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".