MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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.

2008· article· en· W310633559 on OpenAlexafffund
Grant Royan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bovine Practitioner · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsNovartis (Canada)Health Canada
FundersHealth CanadaSouth Dakota State University
KeywordsVirologyInactivated vaccineVirusVaccinationBiologyMedicineAttenuated vaccineDuck embryo vaccineTiterAntigenImmunologyVirulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bovine PractitionerSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207