MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294675789 · doi:10.1016/j.jmii.2022.08.016

A brief on new waves of monkeypox and vaccines and antiviral drugs for monkeypox

2022· article· en· W4294675789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuan‐Pin Hung, Ching‐Chi Lee, Jen‐Chieh Lee, Chun-Wei Chiu, Po‐Ren Hsueh, Wen‐Chien Ko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Microbiology Immunology and Infection · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsMonkeypoxSmallpoxVirologyOutbreakSmallpox vaccineOrthopoxvirusVaccinationPoxviridaeBiologyVaccinia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monkeypox virus (MPXV), genetic closely linked to the notorious variola (smallpox) virus, currently causes several clusters and outbreaks in the areas outside Africa and is noted to be phylogenetically related to the West African clade. To prepare for the upsurge of the cases of monkeypox in the Europe and North America, two vaccines, Jynneos® in the U.S. (Imvamune® in Canada or Imvanex® in the Europe) and ACAM2000® (Acambis, Inc.) initially developed in the smallpox eradication program, can provide protective immunity to monkeypox, and their production and availability are rapidly scaled up in the response to the emerging threat. So far, these two vaccines are recommended for people at a high risk for monkeypox, instead of universal vaccination. Tecovirimat, an inhibitor of extracellular virus formation, and brincidofovir, a lipid conjugate of cidofovir, both are in vitro and in vivo active against MPXV, and are suggested for immunocompromised persons, who are at risk to develop severe diseases. However, current general consensus in the response to the monkeypox outbreak among public health systems is early identification and isolation of infected patients to prevent its spread.

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 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 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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Microbiology Immunology and InfectionSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207