Q&A on the Paper of Kurukulasuriya et al. (2017) on IBD Vaccine Efficacy Againsta Canadian Variant IBDV Strain in Broiler Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kurukulasuriya, et al. (2017) are reporting the efficacy of two IBD vaccines against an early (6 days post-hatch) challenge with a variant Canadian IBDV strain in broilers. A modified live vaccine(UNIVAX BD) administered by SQ route at 1 dayof-age delayed infection whereas an HVT-IBD vector vaccine (VAXXITEK HVT+IBD) administered in ovodid not protect. Furthermore, the authors suggested that the HVT-IBD vector induced immunosuppression responsible for an earlier IBDV challenge strain replication in the bursa. The data presented in the paper showed no evidence of VAXXITEK HVT+IBD vaccine take since the mean IBD ELISA antibody titer at D35 in the vaccinated/non-challenged group was not significantly different from that of the non-vaccinated group. It wasmuch lower than the expected one based on previous studies performed in the same conditions : in ovo vaccination of broilers [1,2]. Since there is no evidence of vaccine take, the other potential effects (immunosuppression and earlier IBDV replication in the bursa) observed in that group cannot be attributed to the vaccine. Since its launch in 2006 in Brazil, VAXXITEK HVT+IBD has been licensed in more than 75 countries and more than 80 billion birds have been vaccinated. VAXXITEK HVT+IBD is protecting against a wide variety of IBDV strains including the classical, the very virulent and different variant strains. To our knowledge, noabsence of efficacy nor bursa depletions have been so far officially reported as long as the vaccine has been administered properlyto healthy embryonated eggs or to healthy one-day-old chicks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.041 |
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".