MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108343043 · doi:10.3389/fped.2020.565368

Vaccine Interactions With the Infant Microbiome: Do They Define Health and Disease?

2020· review· en· W3108343043 on OpenAlexaff
Candice Ruck, Oludare A. Odumade, Kinga K. Smolen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobiomeMedicineImmunityBoosting (machine learning)Immune systemGut microbiomeDiseaseImmunologyPsychological interventionBioinformaticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, there has been a growing awareness of the vital role of the microbiome in the function of the immune system. Recently, several studies have demonstrated a relationship between the composition of the microbiome and the vaccine-specific immune response. As a result of these findings, the administration of probiotics has been proposed as a means of boosting vaccine-specific immunity. Early results have so far been highly inconsistent, with little evidence of sustained benefit. To date, a precise determination of the aspects of the microbiome that impact immunity is still lacking, and the mechanisms of action are also unknown. Further investigations into these questions are necessary to effectively manipulate the microbiome for the purpose of boosting immunity and enhancing vaccine-specific responses in infants. In this review, we summarize recent studies aimed at altering the neonatal gut microbiome to enhance vaccine responses and highlight gaps in knowledge and understanding. We also discuss research strategies aimed at filling these gaps and developing potential therapeutic interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207