MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414990321 · doi:10.1002/rmv.70071

Landscape of Prophylactic Strategies Against Human Parainfluenza Virus Type 3

2025· review· en· W4414990321 on OpenAlexafffund
Clémence Vacher, Julia Dubois, Marie‐Ève Hamelin, Guy Boivin, Manuel Rosa‐Calatrava

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Medical Virology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory viral infections research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunogenicityHuman Parainfluenza VirusBronchiolitisPopulationVirusClinical trialRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human parainfluenza virus-type 3 (HPIV3) is a respiratory virus responsible for mild illnesses in most of the population and severe illnesses, such as bronchiolitis and pneumonia, in young children, immunocompromised individuals and the elderly. To date, no vaccines nor antiviral drugs have been approved against HPIV3, despite its significant burden in vulnerable people. In this review, we present both past and current prophylactic strategies against HPIV3, such as live-attenuated virus, vector-based, subunit and mRNA vaccine candidates or antibody-based passive protection. For each strategy, we give an overview of the most promising candidates evaluated in preclinical studies and we report immunogenicity and protection data from clinical trials. Finally, we discuss the most important challenges regarding those vaccine strategies and their potential administration to the different vulnerable populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Medical VirologySame topicRespiratory viral infections researchFrench-language works237,207