Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 553

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Influenza Virus: Immunity and Vaccination Strategies. Comparison of the Immune Response to Inactivated and Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccines

Open access
Cox, R. J., Brokstad, K. A., Ogra, P.·2004·Scandinavian Journal of Immunology

Abstract

Influenza virus is a globally important respiratory pathogen which causes a high degree of morbidity and mortality annually. The virus is continuously undergoing antigenic change and thus bypasses the host's acquired immunity to influenza. Despite the improvement in antiviral therapy during the last decade, vaccination is still the most effective method of prophylaxis. Vaccination induces a good degree of protection (60–90% efficacy) and is well tolerated by the recipient. For those at risk of complications from influenza, annual vaccination is recommended due to the antigenic changes in circulating strains. However, there is still room for improvement in vaccine efficacy, long‐lasting effect, ease of administration and compliance rates. The mucosal tissues of the respiratory tract are the main portal entry of influenza, and the mucosal immune system provides the first line of defence against infection. Secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) and IgM are the major neutralizing antibodies directed against mucosal pathogens. These antibodies work to prevent pathogen entry and can function intracellularly to inhibit replication of virus. This review describes influenza virus infection, epidemiology, clinical presentation and immune system response, particularly as it pertains to mucosal immunity and vaccine use. Specifically, this review provides an update of the current status on influenza vaccination and concentrates on the two main types of influenza vaccines currently in use, namely the cold‐adapted vaccine (CAV) given intranasally/orally, and the inactivated vaccine (IV) delivered subcutanously or intramuscularly. The commercially available trivalent IV (TIV) elicits good serum antibody responses but induces poorly mucosal IgA antibody and cell‐mediated immunity. In contrast, the CAV may elicit a long‐lasting, broader immune (humoral and cellular) response, which more closely resembles natural immunity. The immune response induced by these two vaccines will be compared in this review.

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 · 10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x

Cites

4 of 4 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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 553

Metadata

Authors
Cox, R. J., Brokstad, K. A., & Ogra, P.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Immunology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
1-15
ISSN
  • 0300-9475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-3083
OpenAlex
W2077332396
Cited by
553
References
4
FWCI
15.31
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influenza Virus: Immunity and Vaccination Strategies. Comparison of the Immune Response to Inactivated and Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x
The paper
Cox, R. J., Brokstad, K. A., & Ogra, P. (2004). Influenza Virus: Immunity and Vaccination Strategies. Comparison of the Immune Response to Inactivated and Live, Attenuated Influenza Vaccines. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0300-9475.2004.01382.x

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.