Does IPV Boost Intestinal Immunity among Children under Five Years of Age? An Experience from Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) has been the mainstay of polio eradication, especially in low-income countries, and its use has eliminated wild poliovirus type 2. However, the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) is safer than OPV, as IPV protects against paralytic poliomyelitis without producing adverse reactions. The present study compared mucosal and humoral responses to poliovirus vaccines administered to previously OPV-immunized children to assess the immunity gap in children in areas of high poliovirus transmission. A cluster-randomized trial was implemented in three high-risk districts of Pakistan-Karachi, Kashmore, and Bajaur-from June 2013 to May 2014. This trial was community-oriented and included three arms, focusing on healthy children below five years of age. The study involved the randomization of 387 clusters, of which 360 were included in the final analysis. The control arm (A) received the routine polio program bivalent poliovirus vaccine (bOPV). The second arm (B) received additional interventions, including health camps providing routine vaccinations and preventive maternal and child health services. In addition to the interventions in arm B, the third arm (C) was also provided with IPV. Blood and stool samples were gathered from children to evaluate humoral and intestinal immunity. The highest levels of poliovirus type 1 serum antibodies were observed in Group C (IPV + OPV). The titers for poliovirus type 2 (P2) and poliovirus type 3 (P3) were noticeably higher in those who had received a routine OPV dose than in those who had not across all study groups and visits. Providing an IPV booster after at least two OPV doses could potentially fill immunity gaps in regions where OPV does not show high efficacy. However, IPV only marginally enhances humoral immunity and fails to offer intestinal immunity, which is critical to stop the infection and spread of live poliovirus in populations that have not been exposed before.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".