Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42129078›Full record

ReviewAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2026

Proteomic Applications in Vaccine Development.

Timothy Daniel Veenstra

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Timothy Daniel VeenstraCollege of Medicine, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Bradenton, FL, USA. tveenstra@lecom.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controversy surrounding vaccines is not new; the first vaccine proven to be effective in preventing disease was subjected to wild rumors ( https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/history-of-vaccination/history-of-smallpox-vaccination ). In 1796 Dr. Edward Jenner inoculated James Phipps with pus from a cowpox sore taken from the hand of Sarah Nelmes (see Fig. 10.1). While 8-year-old James fell ill with a mild case of cowpox, he eventually recovered. Poor James was not yet free from his life as a "lab rat," as Dr. Jenner later inoculated him with pus taken from an individual suffering with smallpox. Fortunately for James, he was unaffected by this inoculation and shown to be resistant to human smallpox. While Jenner's vaccine proved to be effective in preventing smallpox infection, many people were opposed to this remedy. Some ill-informed Church members believed that suffering from smallpox was part of God's judgment for man and attempting to use a vaccine against it was subverting God's will ( https://www.jenner.ac.uk/about/edward-jenner ). Another controversy may have been self-inflicted as Jenner named this novel technique "vaccination," which originated from vacca, the Latin word for "cow." This word association caused some people to believe the vaccine worked by giving people an animal disease or even turned them into or gave them certain characteristics of a cow. In addition, Jenner could not completely explain how the smallpox vaccine worked as it would be another 50 years before Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease.

Indexed as

ProteomicsVaccine DevelopmentAnimalsHumansSmallpoxSmallpox VaccineVaccinationSmallpox VaccineAntigenEpitope mappingImmunoinformaticsImmunopeptidomicsMulti-epitope vaccineOn- and off-target bindingPeptide arraySmallpoxSubtractive proteomicsVaccineVaccine development

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.