Table 3

Results of a model fit to the data with log10 neutralization titers using traditional strategya

VaccineEstimateSEtP
(Intercept)- CON-S1.50.082199.5 × 10−75
C.con–0.210.11–20.047
B.0040–0.230.11–2.10.034
C.089–0.220.1–2.10.033
C.1086–0.250.1–2.40.016
CON-T–0.270.1–2.60.0084
B.63521–0.280.1–2.80.0058
B.62357–0.290.1–2.80.0044
B.con_01–0.30.1–2.90.0032
A1.con–0.30.1–30.0029
AE.con–0.30.1–30.0028
G.con–0.30.1–30.0027
B.6240–0.350.099–3.60.00038
B.con_03–0.370.099–3.70.00002
G.DRCBL–0.380.098–3.80.00014
B.JRFL–0.350.092–3.80.00013
B.9021–0.430.096–4.50.0000062
A.00MSA–0.440.096–4.60.0000040
AE.97CNGX2F–0.480.098–4.80.0000014
C.DU123–0.50.094–5.30.00000012
  • a The results of a model fit to the data with the log10 titer. Con-S gave the highest response in terms of the overall magnitude response and so was used as the reference strain; the very low value P value associated with Con-S reflects that the Con-S vaccine effect is not zero. The other vaccine estimates are negative values since they reflect the overall potency of the response relative to Con-S, and the P value indicates whether this difference is statistically significant. Vaccines are ordered according to their overall magnitude.