MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198263070 · doi:10.3390/vaccines9090979

Review of Influenza Virus Vaccines: The Qualitative Nature of Immune Responses to Infection and Vaccination Is a Critical Consideration

2021· review· en· W3198263070 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsVaccinationPandemicVirologyImmunizationContext (archaeology)ImmunologyImmune systemVirusImmunityBiologyInfluenza A virusMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influenza viruses have affected the world for over a century, causing multiple pandemics. Throughout the years, many prophylactic vaccines have been developed for influenza; however, these viruses are still a global issue and take many lives. In this paper, we review influenza viruses, associated immunological mechanisms, current influenza vaccine platforms, and influenza infection, in the context of immunocompromised populations. This review focuses on the qualitative nature of immune responses against influenza viruses, with an emphasis on trained immunity and an assessment of the characteristics of the host-pathogen that compromise the effectiveness of immunization. We also highlight innovative immunological concepts that are important considerations for the development of the next generation of vaccines against influenza viruses.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.368 · 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