MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254541937 · doi:10.1139/w99-144

Comparative evaluation of conjugate vaccines in the<i>Haemophilus influenzae</i>infection model

2000· article· en· W4254541937 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuichi Miyazaki, Miharu Shintani, Tetsuya Matsumoto, Kazuhiro Tateda, Keizo Yamaguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophilus influenzaeConjugate vaccineVaccinationAntibodyConjugateVirologyPasteurellaceaeImmunizationImmunologyMedicineMicrobiologyBiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a murine model of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) infection to analyze the immunologic response to two commercially available PRP conjugate vaccines (HbOC, PRP-T). The mortality rate in mice infected with a large dose of the bacteria after vaccination with HbOC or PRP-T at two and three doses was significantly lower than in non-vaccinated mice and mice vaccinated by one dose. Furthermore, for infections caused by a small bacterial dose, the mortality rate in mice vaccinated with one, two, or three doses was significantly lower than in non-vaccinated mice. The induction level of anti-PRP antibodies, especially IgG, in serum of mice vaccinated by two or three doses was higher than in those vaccinated with a single dose. Our results indicate that the dose of vaccine influences its efficacy in protecting against Hib infection. Our results also showed a lack of difference between two different PRP conjugate vaccines.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207