ArticleLaboratory animal research2019
Verification with the utility of an established rapid assessment of brain safety for newly developed vaccines.
Article in Laboratory animal research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum Uric Acid-Reducing Effect and Intestinal Mucosal Barrier-Repairing Function ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the twenty-first century, high contagious infectious diseases such as SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome), FMD (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) and AI (Avian Influenza) have become very prevalent, causing treat harm to humans and animals in aspect of public health, and economical issues. The critical problem is that newly-reported infectious diseases that humans firstly experience are expected to continue to emerge, and these diseases will be spreading out rapidly. Therefore, rapid and safe supplies of effective vaccines are most pivotal to prevent the rapid prevalent of new infection, but international standards or assessing protocol the safety of urgent vaccines are not established well. In our previous study, since we established a module to assess the brain safety of urgent vaccines, therefore, it is necessary to verify that this established module for assessing brain safety could work effectively in commercially available two vaccines (one killed- and on live-vaccines). We compared the results of Evans blue (EB) assay and qPCR analysis by injection of two kinds of vaccines, PBS and Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) under the condition of the module previously reported. We confirmed that the brain safety test module for urgent vaccine we established is very reproducible. Therefore, it is believed that this vaccine safety testing method can be used to validate brain safety when prompt supply of a newly developed vaccines is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.