Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19691558›Full record

ReviewParasite immunology2009

How might infant and paediatric immune responses influence malaria vaccine efficacy?

A M Moormann

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Parasite immunology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

A M MoormannCase Western Reserve University, Center for Global Health and Diseases, 2103 Cornell Road, WRB 4-130, Cleveland, OH 44106-7286, USA. axm109@case.edu
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Naturally acquired immunity to malaria requires repeat infections yet does not engender sterile immunity or long-lasting protective immunologic memory. This renders infants and young children the most susceptible to malaria-induced morbidity and mortality, and the ultimate target for a malaria vaccine. The prevailing paradigm is that infants initially garner protection due to transplacentally transferred anti-malarial antibodies and other intrinsic factors such as foetal haemoglobin. As these wane infants have an insufficient immune repertoire to prevent genetically diverse Plasmodium infections and an inability to control malaria-induced immunopathology. This Review discusses humoral, cell-mediated and innate immune responses to malaria and how each contributes to protection - focusing on how deficiencies in infant and paediatric immune responses might influence malaria vaccine efficacy in this population. In addition, burgeoning evidence suggests a role for inhibitory receptors that limit immunopathology and guide the development of long-lived immunity. Precisely how age or malaria infections influence the function of these regulators is unknown. Therefore the possibility that infants may not have the immune-dexterity to balance effective parasite clearance with timely immune-regulation leading to protective immunologic memory is considered. And thus, malaria vaccines tested in adults and older children may not be predictive for trials conducted in infants.

Indexed as

Age FactorsChild, PreschoolHumansImmune SystemInfantMalariaMalaria VaccinesMalaria Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID19691558
PMCPMC2759986
OpenAlexW2001695857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.