Lassa fever vaccine candidates: A scoping review of vaccine clinical trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lassa fever (LF) is caused by a viral pathogen with pandemic potential. LF vaccines have the potential to prevent significant disease in individuals at risk of infection, but no such vaccine has been licensed or authorised for use thus far. We conducted a scoping review to identify and compare registered phase 1, 2 or 3 clinical trials of LF vaccine candidates, and appraise the current trajectory of LF vaccine development. METHOD: We systematically searched 24 trial registries, PubMed, relevant conference abstracts and additional grey literature sources up to 27 October 2022. After extracting key details about each vaccine candidate and each eligible trial, we qualitatively synthesised the evidence. RESULTS: We found that four LF vaccine candidates (INO-4500, MV-LASV, rVSV∆G-LASV-GPC, and EBS-LASV) have entered the clinical stage of assessment. Five phase 1 trials (all focused on healthy adults) and one phase 2 trial (involving a broader age group from 18 months to 70 years) evaluating one of these vaccines have been registered to date. Here, we describe the characteristics of each vaccine candidate and trial and compare them to WHO's target product profile for Lassa vaccines. CONCLUSION: Though LF vaccine development is still in early stages, current progress towards a safe and effective vaccine is encouraging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it