Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Correlates of protective immunity for Ebola vaccines: implications for regulatory approval by the animal rule

Open access
Sullivan, Nancy J., Martin, Julie E., Graham, Barney S., Nabel, Gary J.·2009·Nature Reviews Microbiology

Abstract

Ebola virus infection is a highly lethal disease for which there are no effective therapeutic or preventive treatments. Several vaccines have provided immune protection in laboratory animals, but because outbreaks occur unpredictably and sporadically, vaccine efficacy cannot be proven in human trials, which is required for traditional regulatory approval. The Food and Drug Administration has introduced the 'animal rule', to allow laboratory animal data to be used to show efficacy when human trials are not logistically feasible. In this Review, we describe immune correlates of vaccine protection against Ebola virus in animals. This research provides a basis for bridging the gap from basic research to human vaccine responses in support of the licensing of vaccines through the animal rule.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrmicro2129

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Sullivan, N. J., Martin, J. E., Graham, B. S., & Nabel, G. J.
Venue
Nature Reviews Microbiology
Published
2009-05
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
393-400
ISSN
  • 1740-1526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-1534
OpenAlex
W2081877186
Cited by
226
References
2
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.