MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114788873 · doi:10.3390/v13010054

Lead SARS-CoV-2 Candidate Vaccines: Expectations from Phase III Trials and Recommendations Post-Vaccine Approval

2020· review· en· W3114788873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ebenezer Tumban

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineVirologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)European unionVaccine efficacyTuberculosis vaccinesVaccinationTuberculosisInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted primarily through respiratory droplets/aerosols and it causes COVID-19. The virus infects epithelial cells by using the spike protein on its surface to bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor on the cells. Thus, candidate vaccines targeting the spike protein are currently being developed to prevent against infections. Approximately 44 SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines are in clinical trials (phase I-III) and an additional 164 candidates are in preclinical stages. The efficacy data from phase I/II trials of lead candidate vaccines look very promising with virus-neutralizing geometric mean antibody titers in the range of 16.6-3906. Most recently, two SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, have been granted the first emergency use authorization (EUA) in the U.S.; BNT162b2 has also been granted an EUA in the United Kingdom, Canada, and in the European Union. This review assesses whether SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines (with approved EUA or in phase III trials) meet the criteria for an ideal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The review concludes with expectations from phase III trials and recommendations for phase IV studies (post-vaccine approval).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations75
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207