MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948297476 · doi:10.5061/dryad.b8gtht7jf

Mapping SARS-CoV-2 antigenic relationships and serological responses

2023· dataset· en· W6948297476 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthBundesministerium für GesundheitBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsImmunodominanceSerologyAntigenAntigenic variationEpitopeStrain (injury)ImmunitySpike (software development)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple variants escaping pre-existing immunity emerged, causing concerns about continued protection. Here, we use antigenic cartography to analyze patterns of cross-reactivity among a panel of 21 variants and 15 groups of human sera obtained following primary infection with 10 different variants or after mRNA-1273 or mRNA-1273.351 vaccination. We find antigenic differences among pre-Omicron variants caused by substitutions at spike protein positions 417, 452, 484, and 501. Quantifying changes in response breadth over time and with additional vaccine doses, our results show the largest increase between 4 weeks and >3 months post-2nd dose. We find changes in immunodominance of different spike regions depending on the variant an individual was first exposed to, with implications for variant risk assessment and vaccine strain selection.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.007

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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.002 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207