Live Plague Vaccine Development: Past, Present, and Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last 100 years, vaccine development has evolved from an empirical approach to one of the more rational vaccine designs where the careful selection of antigens and adjuvants is key to the desired efficacy for challenging pathogens and/or challenging populations. To improve immunogenicity while maintaining a favorable reactogenicity and safety profile, modern vaccine design must consider factors beyond the choice of target antigen alone. With new vaccine technologies currently emerging, it will be possible to custom-design vaccines for optimal efficacy in groups of people with different responses to vaccination. It should be noted that after a fairly long period of overwhelming dominance of papers devoted to subunit plague vaccines, materials devoted to the development of live plague vaccines have increasingly been published. In this review, we present our opinion on reasonable tactics for the development and application of live, safe, and protective human plague vaccines causing an enhanced duration of protection and breadth of action against various virulent strains in vaccination studies representing different ages, genders, and nucleotide polymorphisms of the genes responsible for immune response.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".