MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410779601 · doi:10.1002/ped4.70005

Advancing dengue vaccine development: Challenges, innovations, and the path toward global protection

2025· review· en· W4410779601 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Wang, Bridget Kim, Hridesh Mishra, Kevin C. Kain

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Investigation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDengue vaccineDengue feverPath (computing)VirologyBusinessDengue virusComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dengue fever remains a significant global health threat, placing nearly half of the world's population at risk. Despite decades of research, developing an effective dengue vaccine continues to face multiple challenges, including antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), serotype-specific efficacy, and logistical barriers to vaccine delivery. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the historical and current landscape of dengue vaccine development, focusing on CYD-TDV, TAK-003, and Butantan-DV. It examines their efficacy, safety profiles, and limitations, particularly in achieving balanced quadrivalent protection. Additionally, this review highlights key areas for future research, including the impact of ADE, advancements in vaccine platforms, the need for region-specific vaccine formulations, and the integration of vaccination into broader dengue prevention strategies. Ultimately, sustained investment and global collaboration are crucial for achieving the goal of a dengue-free world.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric InvestigationSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207