Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15950445›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in immunology2005

Vaccinology at the beginning of the 21st century.

Andreas Wack, Rino Rappuoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in immunology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Carbon nanotubes as vaccine scaffolds.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2013
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Profiling antibody responses by multiparametric analysis of primary B cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2008
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Andreas WackChiron Vaccines, Via Fiorentina 1, 53100 Siena, Italy.
Rino Rappuoli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Today, the main challenges for vaccinologists include improving vaccines against as yet undefeated pathogens, rapid identification and response to emerging diseases and successful intervention in chronic diseases in which ongoing immune responses are insufficient. Reverse genetics and reverse vaccinology are now used to generate rapidly new vaccine strains and to mine whole genomes in the search for promising antigens. The rational design of adjuvants has become possible as a result of the discovery of the receptors that recognize microbial patterns and lead to dendritic cell activation. Antigen-loaded dendritic cells, DNA in naked, formulated or viral form, and other delivery systems are used to maximize immune responses. Although work on the 'easy' vaccines has already been completed, it is hoped that a combination of conceptual and technical innovation will enable the development of more complex and sophisticated vaccines in the future.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAnimalsAntigensCommunicable Diseases, EmergingDendritic CellsHumansVaccinesAdjuvants, ImmunologicAntigensVaccines

Identifiers

PMID15950445
PMCPMC7125631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.