Comparative efficacy of modified-live and inactivated vaccines in boosting responses to bovine respiratory syncytial virus, bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3, and bovine coronavirus following neonatal mucosal priming of beef calves.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study compared clinical and immunological responses to coinfection challenge of beef calves mucosally primed and differentially boosted with commercial combination vaccines containing antigens against bovine coronavirus (BCoV), bovine parainfluenza virus Type 3 (BPIV3), and bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV). Animals: Nineteen commercial beef heifers. Procedure: At birth, calves were mucosally (IN) primed with modified-live virus (MLV) vaccines, differentially boosted by injection of either combination MLV (IN-MLV) or inactivated virus (IN-KV) vaccines at a mean age of 44 d, and then challenged by coinfection with BCoV, BPIV3, and BRSV at weaning. Results: Both groups were similarly protected from clinical disease and had anamnestic neutralizing antibody responses to all 3 viruses. The IN-KV group shed more BCoV, and less BPIV3 and BRSV, than the IN-MLV group. Conclusion: These data indicated similar clinical and immunological protection between IN-MLV and IN-KV; however, shed of virus varied. Clinical relevance: Whereas boosting with KV or MLV appeared to have similar efficacy, viral shed differences may affect disease control.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".