SynthesisPloS one2026
Advancing poultry health: A meta-analysis of epitope-based and peptide-based vaccines against Avian Pathogenic E. coli with machine learning insights.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAvian Pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) causes colibacillosis in poultry, which leads to tremendous economic losses. Traditional control methods, including antibiotics and conventional vaccines, are less effective due to the genetic diversity of APEC and developing antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Novel epitope- and peptide-based vaccines, supported by machine learning (ML), hold high promise.
objectivesThis meta-analysis and systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of epitope- and peptide-vaccine-based candidates against APEC-related morbidity and mortality, production factors, and AMR, and the use of ML in vaccine development. MATERIALS AND
methodsTen studies were included. Outcomes assessed were prevention of mortality, morbidity, immunogenicity, production performance, and reduction in AMR. The random-effects model was applied for meta-analysis, and the use of ML was summarized descriptively.
resultsVaccines prevent mortality (RR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.30-1.68, p < 0.001, I2 = 5.55%) and morbidity (RR = 1.50; 95% CI: 0.64-2.35, p < 0.001, I2 = 49.55%) significantly. More sophisticated formulations, such as outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) and nanoparticle-conjugated platforms, induced substantial immune responses and cross-serotype protection. The available evidence showed variability, which needs further validation. The interventions may reduce bacterial load and, potentially, antibiotic consumption. ML provided exciting potential that may improve epitope prediction and delivery strategies.
conclusionEpitope- and peptide-vaccines showed significant but variable efficacy, while ML demonstrated promising potential in improving the control of APEC. Their utility needs to be established through large field trials and economic analysis.
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.