Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38242890›Full record

ReviewNPJ vaccines2024

Development and use of machine learning algorithms in vaccine target selection.

Barbara Bravi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Vaccine development againstClinical and experimental vaccine research · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Barbara BraviDepartment of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK. b.bravi21@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4860-7584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer-aided discovery of vaccine targets has become a cornerstone of rational vaccine design. In this article, I discuss how Machine Learning (ML) can inform and guide key computational steps in rational vaccine design concerned with the identification of B and T cell epitopes and correlates of protection. I provide examples of ML models, as well as types of data and predictions for which they are built. I argue that interpretable ML has the potential to improve the identification of immunogens also as a tool for scientific discovery, by helping elucidate the molecular processes underlying vaccine-induced immune responses. I outline the limitations and challenges in terms of data availability and method development that need to be addressed to bridge the gap between advances in ML predictions and their translational application to vaccine design.

Identifiers

PMID38242890
PMCPMC10798987

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.