MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409706031 · doi:10.3390/vaccines13050439

WHO Workshop Report: Regulatory Science to Inform Clinical Pathways for Shigella Vaccines Intended for Use in Children in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2025· article· en· W4409706031 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Kaminski, Patricia B. Pavlinac, James A. Platts-Mills, Elizabeth T. Rogawski McQuade, William P. Hausdorff, Richard Isbrucker, Kirsten Vannice, Marco Cavaleri, Sonali Kochhar, Kirsty Mehring-LeDoare, Godwin Enwere, Annelies Wilder‐Smith, Karen L. Kotloff, Samba O. Sow, Birgitte Giersing

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)New product developmentMedicineClinical study designPopulationClinical trialBusinessPublic relationsEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infectious diarrhea caused by Shigella remains a significant global health concern, and several vaccine candidates are approaching phase III clinical studies in the target population of young children in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has published preferred product characteristics (PPCs) for Shigella vaccines to provide strategic guidance that aids in advancing product development and highlights policy considerations for use in LMIC settings where the vaccine is most needed. However, the selection of appropriate clinical endpoints was not clearly defined within the PPCs and remains an important issue for phase III study design. Previously, an expert panel identified areas of alignment and consensus on many clinical study design components while also recognizing that further discussions and data were required to solidify recommendations on key study design aspects. Therefore, WHO convened a diverse range of stakeholders, including manufacturers, regulators, and policymakers across national, regional, and global levels, with the aim of achieving consensus and soliciting inputs from the regulatory community surrounding vaccine phase III study design considerations. The intent of this report is to outline the key points from those discussions to inform the phase III design strategies and investment decisions of product developers and donors and to share recommendations for next steps.

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)0.220
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2200.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0180.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.006

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207