Safety and Immunogenicity of an Investigational Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine (RSVPreF3) in Mothers and Their Infants: A Phase 2 Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a phase 1/2 study, a maternal respiratory syncytial virus vaccine candidate (RSVPreF3) demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and efficiently increased RSV-specific humoral immune responses in non-pregnant women. METHODS: In this phase 2 observer-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial (NCT04126213), the safety of RSVPreF3 (60 or 120 µg), administered during late second or third trimester, was evaluated in 213 18- to 40-year-old healthy pregnant women through 6 months postdelivery and their offspring through infancy; immunogenicity was evaluated through day 43 postdelivery and day 181 postbirth, respectively. RESULTS: RSVPreF3 was well tolerated. No pregnancy-related or neonatal adverse events of special interest were considered vaccine/placebo related. In the 60 and 120 µg RSVPreF3 groups: (1) neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers in mothers increased 12.7- and 14.9-fold against RSV-A and 10.6- and 13.2-fold against RSV-B, respectively, 1 month postvaccination and remained 8.9-10.0-fold over prevaccination at day 43 postdelivery; (2) nAb titers were consistently higher compared to placebo recipients; (3) placental transfer ratios for anti-RSVPreF3 antibodies at birth were 1.62 and 1.90, respectively, and (4) nAb levels in infants were highest at birth and declined through day 181 postbirth. CONCLUSIONS: RSVPreF3 maternal vaccination had an acceptable safety risk profile and induced robust RSV-specific immune responses with successful antibody transfer to their newborns. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04126213.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".