ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023
Foundations for improved vaccine correlate of risk analysis using positive-unlabeled learning.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Candidate correlates of protection in the HVTN505 HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trial identified by positive-unlabeled learning.PLoS computational biology · 2025Trial
- Candidate Correlates of Protection in the HVTN505 HIV-1 Vaccine Efficacy Trial Identified by Positive-Unlabeled Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Editorial to special issue "The power of immunoprofiling supported by computational data integration and machine learning".Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Plasmodium vivax antigen candidate prediction improves with the addition of Plasmodium falciparum data.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2024Article
- Positive-unlabeled learning to infer protection status and identify correlates in vaccine efficacy field trials.iScience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Insights into mechanisms of protection afforded by vaccine efficacy field trials can be complicated by both low rates of exposure and protection. However, these barriers do not preclude the discovery of correlates of reduced risk (CoR) of infection, which are a critical first step in defining correlates of protection (CoP). Given the significant investment in large-scale human vaccine efficacy trials and immunogenicity data collected to support CoR discovery, novel approaches for analyzing efficacy trials to optimally support discovery of CoP are critically needed. By simulating immunological data and evaluating several machine learning approaches, this study lays the groundwork for deploying Positive/Unlabeled (P/U) learning methods, which are designed to differentiate between two groups in cases where only one group has a definitive label and the other remains ambiguous. This description applies to case-control analysis designs for field trials of vaccine efficacy: infected subjects, or cases, are by definition unprotected, whereas uninfected subjects, or controls, may have been either protected or unprotected but simply never exposed. Here, we investigate the value of applying P/U learning to classify study subjects using model immunogenicity data based on predicted protection status in order to support new insights into mechanisms of vaccine-mediated protection from infection. We demonstrate that P/U learning methods can reliably infer protection status, supporting the discovery of simulated CoP that are not observed in conventional comparisons of infection status cases and controls, and we propose next steps necessary for the practical deployment of this novel approach to correlate discovery.
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.