MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367601222 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciad218

Efficacy of a 4-Antigen <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> Vaccine in Spinal Surgery: The <i>STaphylococcus aureus</i> suRgical Inpatient Vaccine Efficacy (STRIVE) Randomized Clinical Trial

2023· article· en· W4367601222 on OpenAlexaff
Hamid Hassanzadeh, James Baber, Elizabeth Begier, David C. Noriega, Hiroaki Konishi, Yoshiyuki Yato, Michael Y. Wang, Jean Charles Le Huec, Vikas V. Patel, Péter Varga, Ulf Liljenqvist, John Conly, Charu Sabharwal, Iona Munjal, David Cooper, David Radley, Anna Jaques, Michael A. Patton, William C. Gruber, Kathrin U. Jansen, Annaliesa S. Anderson, Alejandra Gurtman, Jonathan M. Zenilman, Robert A. Salata, William Schaffner, William C. Blackwelder, David Leaper

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineStaphylococcus aureusAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialPlaceboInternal medicineClinical trialSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus is a global pathogen that is frequently responsible for healthcare-associated infections, including surgical site infections (SSIs). Current infection prevention and control approaches may be limited, with S. aureus antibiotic resistance remaining problematic. Thus, a vaccine to prevent or reduce S. aureus infection is critically needed. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of an investigational 4-antigen S. aureus vaccine (SA4Ag) in adults undergoing elective open posterior spinal fusion procedures with multilevel instrumentation. METHODS: In this multicenter, site-level, randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 18-85 years received a single dose of SA4Ag or placebo 10-60 days before surgery. SA4Ag efficacy in preventing postoperative S. aureus bloodstream infection and/or deep incisional or organ/space SSIs was the primary end point. Safety evaluations included local reactions, systemic events, and adverse events (AEs). Immunogenicity and colonization were assessed. RESULTS: Study enrollment was halted when a prespecified interim efficacy analysis met predefined futility criteria. SA4Ag showed no efficacy (0.0%) in preventing postoperative S. aureus infection (14 cases in each group through postoperative day 90), despite inducing robust functional immune responses to each antigen compared with placebo. Colonization rates across groups were similar through postoperative day 180. Local reactions and systemic events were mostly mild or moderate in severity, with AEs reported at similar frequencies across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing elective spinal fusion surgical procedures, SA4Ag was safe and well tolerated but, despite eliciting substantial antibody responses that blocked key S. aureus virulence mechanisms, was not efficacious in preventing S. aureus infection. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02388165.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations40
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207