PMC:7497282 / 36751-40870
Annnotations
MyTest
{"project":"MyTest","denotations":[{"id":"32741232-22149700-29927031","span":{"begin":446,"end":447},"obj":"22149700"},{"id":"32741232-22551030-29927032","span":{"begin":650,"end":652},"obj":"22551030"},{"id":"32741232-23550939-29927033","span":{"begin":909,"end":910},"obj":"23550939"},{"id":"32741232-22804479-29927034","span":{"begin":1016,"end":1018},"obj":"22804479"},{"id":"32741232-23550968-29927035","span":{"begin":1237,"end":1239},"obj":"23550968"},{"id":"32741232-23461599-29927036","span":{"begin":1527,"end":1529},"obj":"23461599"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927037","span":{"begin":1576,"end":1578},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-23470192-29927038","span":{"begin":1661,"end":1663},"obj":"23470192"},{"id":"32741232-23470192-29927039","span":{"begin":1690,"end":1692},"obj":"23470192"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927040","span":{"begin":1802,"end":1804},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927041","span":{"begin":1973,"end":1975},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927042","span":{"begin":2219,"end":2221},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-22985171-29927043","span":{"begin":2489,"end":2491},"obj":"22985171"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927044","span":{"begin":2669,"end":2671},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927045","span":{"begin":3916,"end":3918},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-24472313-29927046","span":{"begin":3920,"end":3922},"obj":"24472313"},{"id":"32741232-25316861-29927047","span":{"begin":3924,"end":3926},"obj":"25316861"},{"id":"32741232-24308581-29927048","span":{"begin":4068,"end":4070},"obj":"24308581"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/testbase"},{"prefix":"UniProtKB","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/"},{"prefix":"uniprot","uri":"https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/"}],"text":"Still focused on post-WPV eradication and the polio endgame, as the GPEI immunization policies evolved, KRI appreciated the need to expand and update its integrated model. Specifically, as the GPEI began using mOPVs, first mOPV1 and then mOPV3, and later using bOPV (which contains both serotypes 1 and 3) for some SIAs, KRI needed to model the transmission of each serotype. KRI identified the need to model population immunity to transmission [1], and widely discussed its key role in prevention [200]. As part of its model update, KRI characterized the global immunization policy options as of 2012 and identified prerequisites for OPV cessation [28]. KRI developed a series of papers published in a 2013 special issue of Risk Analysis that described the components of its expanded and updated poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model and discussed the role of modeling as part of the polio legacy [2]. KRI performed a comprehensive expert review of the literature on poliovirus immunity and transmission [29] and synthesized the information from the experts to (i) numerically characterize an expanded set of immunity states for its transmission model and (ii) identify significant uncertainties despite the large literature [30]. KRI reviewed the 2012 national polio immunization strategies to characterize updated prospective polio immunization policies and reviewed the seroconversion literature to characterize variability in vaccine take rates for different vaccines and numbers of doses in different settings [31]. KRI also updated its prior review of risks [13] and reviewed the literature related to understanding and modeling OPV evolution [32]. Based on this analysis [32], KRI concluded that its prior statistical model for cVDPV risks based on the historical global use of tOPV [13] offered poor predictive value of risks after the GPEI introduced mOPVs and bOPV. Specifically, the poor performance of the statistical model based on historical data [13] when compared with evidence at the time motivated KRI to include OPV evolution and the development of cVDPVs endogenously in its expanded poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model (i.e. to use a dynamic and serotype-specific approach) [33]. KRI focused on the need to manage population immunity to transmission considering all individuals in the population, including individuals immune to disease but able to contribute asymptomatically to transmission, most notably those with only IPV-induced immunity [34]. The expanded model of poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution offered insights from modeling a diverse set of actual experiences with wild and vaccine-related polioviruses [33]. Overall, the expanded poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model (i) uses eight recent immunity states to reflect immunity derived from maternal antibodies in infants, only IPV vaccination, only LPV infection, or both IPV vaccination and LPV infection (to more realistically capture the differences in immunity derived from IPV and LPV), (ii) includes multi-stage waning and infection processes (for more realistic characterization of these processes), (iii) characterizes OPV evolution as a 20-stage process from Sabin OPV (as administered) to fully reverted polioviruses with assumed identical properties to typical homotypic WPVs (to allow cVDPV emergence to occur within the model), (iv) characterizes each serotype separately (to analyze serotype-specific poliovirus properties, vaccination policies and risks), (v) considers explicitly both fecal-oral and oropharyngeal transmission (to account for the differential impact of IPV on fecal and oropharyngeal excretion), (vi) accounts for heterogeneous preferential mixing between mixing age groups and subpopulations, and (vii) accounts for differences between various IPV and OPV routine immunization schedules and the reality of repeatedly missed children during successive SIAs [33, 35, 36]. KRI also updated its estimates of IPV costs in the context of exploring national choices related to IPV use with various delivery options [37] and noted continued high expected costs of IPV."}
2_test
{"project":"2_test","denotations":[{"id":"32741232-22149700-29927031","span":{"begin":446,"end":447},"obj":"22149700"},{"id":"32741232-22551030-29927032","span":{"begin":650,"end":652},"obj":"22551030"},{"id":"32741232-23550939-29927033","span":{"begin":909,"end":910},"obj":"23550939"},{"id":"32741232-22804479-29927034","span":{"begin":1016,"end":1018},"obj":"22804479"},{"id":"32741232-23550968-29927035","span":{"begin":1237,"end":1239},"obj":"23550968"},{"id":"32741232-23461599-29927036","span":{"begin":1527,"end":1529},"obj":"23461599"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927037","span":{"begin":1576,"end":1578},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-23470192-29927038","span":{"begin":1661,"end":1663},"obj":"23470192"},{"id":"32741232-23470192-29927039","span":{"begin":1690,"end":1692},"obj":"23470192"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927040","span":{"begin":1802,"end":1804},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-17184393-29927041","span":{"begin":1973,"end":1975},"obj":"17184393"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927042","span":{"begin":2219,"end":2221},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-22985171-29927043","span":{"begin":2489,"end":2491},"obj":"22985171"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927044","span":{"begin":2669,"end":2671},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-23521018-29927045","span":{"begin":3916,"end":3918},"obj":"23521018"},{"id":"32741232-24472313-29927046","span":{"begin":3920,"end":3922},"obj":"24472313"},{"id":"32741232-25316861-29927047","span":{"begin":3924,"end":3926},"obj":"25316861"},{"id":"32741232-24308581-29927048","span":{"begin":4068,"end":4070},"obj":"24308581"}],"text":"Still focused on post-WPV eradication and the polio endgame, as the GPEI immunization policies evolved, KRI appreciated the need to expand and update its integrated model. Specifically, as the GPEI began using mOPVs, first mOPV1 and then mOPV3, and later using bOPV (which contains both serotypes 1 and 3) for some SIAs, KRI needed to model the transmission of each serotype. KRI identified the need to model population immunity to transmission [1], and widely discussed its key role in prevention [200]. As part of its model update, KRI characterized the global immunization policy options as of 2012 and identified prerequisites for OPV cessation [28]. KRI developed a series of papers published in a 2013 special issue of Risk Analysis that described the components of its expanded and updated poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model and discussed the role of modeling as part of the polio legacy [2]. KRI performed a comprehensive expert review of the literature on poliovirus immunity and transmission [29] and synthesized the information from the experts to (i) numerically characterize an expanded set of immunity states for its transmission model and (ii) identify significant uncertainties despite the large literature [30]. KRI reviewed the 2012 national polio immunization strategies to characterize updated prospective polio immunization policies and reviewed the seroconversion literature to characterize variability in vaccine take rates for different vaccines and numbers of doses in different settings [31]. KRI also updated its prior review of risks [13] and reviewed the literature related to understanding and modeling OPV evolution [32]. Based on this analysis [32], KRI concluded that its prior statistical model for cVDPV risks based on the historical global use of tOPV [13] offered poor predictive value of risks after the GPEI introduced mOPVs and bOPV. Specifically, the poor performance of the statistical model based on historical data [13] when compared with evidence at the time motivated KRI to include OPV evolution and the development of cVDPVs endogenously in its expanded poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model (i.e. to use a dynamic and serotype-specific approach) [33]. KRI focused on the need to manage population immunity to transmission considering all individuals in the population, including individuals immune to disease but able to contribute asymptomatically to transmission, most notably those with only IPV-induced immunity [34]. The expanded model of poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution offered insights from modeling a diverse set of actual experiences with wild and vaccine-related polioviruses [33]. Overall, the expanded poliovirus transmission and OPV evolution model (i) uses eight recent immunity states to reflect immunity derived from maternal antibodies in infants, only IPV vaccination, only LPV infection, or both IPV vaccination and LPV infection (to more realistically capture the differences in immunity derived from IPV and LPV), (ii) includes multi-stage waning and infection processes (for more realistic characterization of these processes), (iii) characterizes OPV evolution as a 20-stage process from Sabin OPV (as administered) to fully reverted polioviruses with assumed identical properties to typical homotypic WPVs (to allow cVDPV emergence to occur within the model), (iv) characterizes each serotype separately (to analyze serotype-specific poliovirus properties, vaccination policies and risks), (v) considers explicitly both fecal-oral and oropharyngeal transmission (to account for the differential impact of IPV on fecal and oropharyngeal excretion), (vi) accounts for heterogeneous preferential mixing between mixing age groups and subpopulations, and (vii) accounts for differences between various IPV and OPV routine immunization schedules and the reality of repeatedly missed children during successive SIAs [33, 35, 36]. KRI also updated its estimates of IPV costs in the context of exploring national choices related to IPV use with various delivery options [37] and noted continued high expected costs of IPV."}