MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403099736 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2024.1457327

DNA and RNA vaccines against tuberculosis: a scoping review of human and animal studies

2024· review· en· W4403099736 on OpenAlexaff
Alisa Kazakova, Pavel Zhelnov, Roman Yu. Sidorov, Anna Rogova, О. С. Васильева, Roman Ivanov, Vasiliy Reshetnikov, Аlbert R. Muslimov

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioOntario Neurotrauma FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversitetet i Oslo
KeywordsTuberculosisVirologyDNA vaccinationMedicineRNATuberculosis vaccinesBiologyComputational biologyImmunologyMycobacterium tuberculosisGeneticsImmune systemGeneImmunizationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction To comprehensively identify and provide an overview of in vivo or clinical studies of nucleic acids (NA)-based vaccines against TB we included human or animal studies of NA vaccines for the prevention or treatment of TB and excluded in vitro or in silico research, studies of microorganisms other than M. tuberculosis, reviews, letters, and low-yield reports. Methods We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, selected Web of Science and ProQuest databases, Google Scholar, eLIBRARY.RU, PROSPERO, OSF Registries, Cochrane CENTRAL, EU Clinical Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and others through WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, AVMA and CABI databases, bioRxiv, medRxiv, and others through OSF Preprint Archive Search. We searched the same sources and Google for vaccine names (GX-70) and scanned reviews for references. Data on antigenic composition, delivery systems, adjuvants, and vaccine efficacy were charted and summarized descriptively. Results A total of 18,157 records were identified, of which 968 were assessed for eligibility. No clinical studies were identified. 365 reports of 345 animal studies were included in the review. 342 (99.1%) studies involved DNA vaccines, and the remaining three focused on mRNA vaccines. 285 (82.6%) studies used single-antigen vaccines, while 48 (13.9%) used multiple antigens or combinations with adjuvants. Only 12 (3.5%) studies involved multiepitope vaccines. The most frequently used antigens were immunodominant secretory antigens (Ag85A, Ag85B, ESAT6), heat shock proteins, and cell wall proteins. Most studies delivered naked plasmid DNA intramuscularly without additional adjuvants. Only 4 of 17 studies comparing NA vaccines to BCG after M. tuberculosis challenge demonstrated superior protection in terms of bacterial load reduction. Some vaccine variants showed better efficacy compared to BCG. Systematic review registration https://osf.io/ , identifier F7P9G.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0240.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207