Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32322598›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunology research2020

Development and Validation of a

Ricardo da Silva Antunes, Lorenzo G Quiambao, Aaron Sutherland, Ferran Soldevila, Sandeep Kumar Dhanda, Sandra K Armstrong, Timothy J Brickman, Tod Merkel, Bjoern Peters, Alessandro Sette

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immunology research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Th1 polarization inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. PINK1 is a target of T cell responses in Parkinson's disease.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ricardo da Silva AntunesDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9785-5272
Lorenzo G QuiambaoDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.
Aaron SutherlandDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.
Ferran SoldevilaDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.
Sandeep Kumar DhandaDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1381-7434
Sandra K ArmstrongDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Timothy J BrickmanDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Tod MerkelDivision of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Bjoern PetersDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.
Alessandro SetteDivision of Vaccine Discovery, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, San Diego, California, USA.
La Jolla Institute for Immunology · USUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center · USCenter for Biologics Evaluation and Research · US

Funding

Identifying mechanisms and correlates of long-lasting vaccine-induced immunity to whooping coughU01AI141995 · NIAID · LA JOLLA INSTITUTE FOR IMMUNOLOGY · PI PETERS, BJOERN, SETTE, ALESSANDRO · 2019 to 2023
$4.1M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI141995
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The immune response elicited by the protective whole-cell pertussis (wP) versus the less-protective acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine has been well characterized; however, important clinical problems remain unsolved, as the inability of the currently administered aP vaccine is resulting in the reemergence of clinical disease (i.e., whooping cough). Strong evidence has shown that original, childhood aP and wP priming vaccines provide a long-lasting imprint on the CD4+ T cells that impacts protective immunity. However, aP vaccination might prevent disease but not infection, which might also affect the breadth of responses to

Indexed as

AdultAntigens, BacterialBordetella pertussisCytokinesEnzyme-Linked Immunospot AssayEpitopes, T-LymphocyteFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansImmunologic MemoryMalePertussis VaccineT-LymphocytesVaccines, AcellularVaccines, InactivatedVaccines, SubunitAntigens, BacterialCytokinesEpitopes, T-LymphocytePertussis VaccineVaccines, AcellularVaccines, InactivatedVaccines, Subunit

Identifiers

PMID32322598
PMCPMC7154976
OpenAlexW3014835078

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.