MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BCG Vaccines

2014· review· en· W4246784893 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiology Spectrum · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycobacterium bovisBCG vaccineTuberculosisVirulenceTuberculosis vaccinesMycobacterium tuberculosisAttenuated vaccineVirologyVaccinationBiologyMedicineImmunologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BCG is the collective name for a family of live attenuated strains of Mycobacterium bovis that are currently used as the only vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). There are two major reasons for studying the genome of these organisms: (i) Because they are attenuated, BCG vaccines provide a window into Mycobacterium tuberculosis virulence, and (ii) because they have provided protection in several clinical trials and case-control studies, BCG vaccines may shed light on properties required of a TB vaccine. Since the determination of the M. tuberculosis genome in 1998, the study of BCG vaccines has accelerated dramatically, offering data on the genomic differences between virulent M. tuberculosis, M. bovis, and the vaccine strains. While these findings have been rewarding for the study of virulence, there is unfortunately less accrued knowledge about protection. In this chapter, we review briefly the history of BCG vaccines and then touch upon studies over the past two decades that help explain how BCG underwent attenuation, concluding with some more speculative comments as to how these vaccines might offer protection against TB.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.335 · 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