Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38752004›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental vaccine research2024

Vaccinomics and adversomics: key elements for a personalized vaccinology.

Antonio Laganà, Giuseppa Visalli, Angela Di Pietro, Alessio Facciolà

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Vaccine trends: a narrative review.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Antonio LaganàDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0721-6181
Giuseppa VisalliDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9072-1148
Angela Di PietroDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7273-6493
Alessio FacciolàDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6801-237X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines are one of the most important and effective tools in the prevention of infectious diseases and research about all the aspects of vaccinology are essential to increase the number of available vaccines more and more safe and effective. Despite the unquestionable value of vaccinations, vaccine hesitancy has spread worldwide compromising the success of vaccinations. Currently, the main purpose of vaccination campaigns is the immunization of whole populations with the same vaccine formulations and schedules for all individuals. A personalized vaccinology approach could improve modern vaccinology counteracting vaccine hesitancy and giving great benefits for human health. This ambitious purpose would be possible by facing and deepening the areas of vaccinomics and adversomics, two innovative areas of study investigating the role of a series of variables able to influence the immune response to vaccinations and the development of serious side effects, respectively. We reviewed the recent scientific knowledge about these innovative sciences focusing on genetic and non-genetic basis involved in the individual response to vaccines in terms of both immune response and side effects.

Indexed as

AdversomicsVaccinationVaccinomics

Identifiers

PMID38752004
PMCPMC11091437

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.