MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415700142 · doi:10.1128/mbio.00419-25

The Story behind the Science: A history of Q-VAX, the Australian human vaccine against Q fever

2025· article· en· W4415700142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Graves

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSeqirus
KeywordsQ feverCommonwealthVaccinationIncidence (geometry)SmallpoxSmallpox vaccineEmbryonated

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Q-VAX vaccine is the only human vaccine against Q fever currently available in the world and is only available in Australia. The vaccine arose from a fruitful partnership between an American microbiologist, Richard Ormsbee, and an Australian infectious diseases doctor, Barrie Marmion. The vaccine was made in Australia from seed stock of Coxiella burnetii , originally isolated from an American soldier in Italy, the Henzerling strain. The vaccine was manufactured by a then Australian government-owned company, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, in Melbourne, using embryonated chicken eggs, starting in 1981. It was shown to be effective and relatively safe and became available for general use in 1989. It was originally used to reduce the incidence of Q fever in Australian abattoir workers but is now used (albeit underutilized) by many other occupational groups, especially in rural and regional parts of Australia. The vaccine is highly effective with over 95% efficacy, and its protective effect appears to last for many years. However, its use can lead to side effects in persons who have already been exposed to the bacterium. This has limited its use worldwide. The vaccine is currently used in Australia and, although significantly underutilized due to the need to pretest persons before vaccination, is playing a key role in reducing the incidence of Q fever in groups of Australians at risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207