MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385997280 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiad354

Perspectives on Advancing Countermeasures for Filovirus Disease: Report From a Multisector Meeting

2023· article· en· W4385997280 on OpenAlexafffund
Armand Sprecher, Robert W. Cross, Andrea Marzi, Karen Martins, Daniel Wolfe, Joel M. Montgomery, Christina F. Spiropoulou, Tomáš Cihlář, Steve Ahuka‐Mundeke, Tara J. Nyhuis, Carrie Teicher, Ian Crozier, Jim Strong, Gary Kobinger, Courtney Woolsey, Thomas W. Geisbert, Heinz Feldmann, Jean‐Jacques Muyembe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Texas Medical Branch
KeywordsEbola virusClinical trialMedicineDiseaseCase fatality rateProtocol (science)OutbreakIntensive care medicineVirologyAlternative medicineEpidemiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there are now approved treatments and vaccines for Ebola virus disease, the case fatality rate remains unacceptably high even when patients are treated with the newly approved therapeutics. Furthermore, these countermeasures are not expected to be effective against disease caused by other filoviruses. A meeting of subject-matter experts was held during the 10th International Filovirus Symposium to discuss strategies to address these gaps. Several investigational therapeutics, vaccine candidates, and combination strategies were presented. The greatest challenge was identified to be the implementation of well-designed clinical trials of safety and efficacy during filovirus disease outbreaks. Preparing for this will require agreed-upon common protocols for trials intended to bridge multiple outbreaks across all at-risk countries. A multinational research consortium including at-risk countries would be an ideal mechanism to negotiate agreement on protocol design and coordinate preparation. Discussion participants recommended a follow-up meeting be held in Africa to establish such a consortium.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0350.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207