Coronavirus Immunotherapeutic Consortium Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has seen multiple anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies being generated globally. It is difficult, however, to assemble a useful compendium of these biological properties if they are derived from experimental measurements performed at different sites under different experimental conditions. The Coronavirus Immunotherapeutic Consortium (COVIC) circumvents these issues by experimentally testing blinded antibodies side by side for several functional activities. To collect these data in a consistent fashion and make it publicly available, we established the COVIC database (COVIC-DB, https://covicdb.lji.org/). This database enables systematic analysis and interpretation of this large-scale dataset by providing a comprehensive view of various features such as affinity, neutralization, in vivo protection and effector functions for each antibody. Interactive graphs enable direct comparisons of antibodies based on select functional properties. We demonstrate how the COVIC-DB can be utilized to examine relationships among antibody features, thereby guiding the design of therapeutic antibody cocktails. Database URL https://covicdb.lji.org/.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.035 |
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".