MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6960965236 · doi:10.14288/1.0228098

Diversity of Canadian meningococcal serogroup B isolates and estimated coverage of an investigational meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB)

2016· article· en· W6960965236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilocus sequence typingNeisseria meningitidisSerotypeTypingMeningococcal vaccineAntigenPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In collaboration with the Canadian Immunization Monitoring Program Active (IMPACT), the National Microbiology Laboratory,the UK Health Protection Agency and Novartis Vaccines, we tested the potential of an investigational 4-component meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB) to cover Canadian strains circulating from 2006 to 2009. Methods: IMPACT meningococcal surveillance is population based and includes over 50% of Canadian adults and children. All isolates were characterized by Meningococcal Antigen Typing System (MATS) and sequencing for factor H-binding protein (fHbp), Neisseria Heparin Binding Antigen (NHBA) and Neisserial adhesin A(NadA). Results: In total, 157 isolates were tested. Overall, 4CMenB MATS predicted strain coverage was 66% (95% CI: 46–78%), with 26%, 29% and 11% of strains covered by one,two and three vaccine antigens, respectively. The coverage of each antigen was as follows: 13% PorA, 1% NadA, 52% fHbp and 51% NHBA.The majority of strains for clonal complex (cc) 1/44 and cc 60 were covered by NHBA; the majority of strains for cc269 and cc32 were covered by fHbp and NHBA. Coverage for two prevalent strains (sequence type (ST)-269 and ST-154)was 95% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: 4CMenB has the potential to protect against a significant proportion of Canadian invasive MenB strains.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207