REVIEW ARTICLE: Mucosal Innate Immunity as a Determinant of HIV Susceptibility
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is acquired during sex, across a mucosal membrane. Despite many advances in our understanding of HIV pathogenesis, the initial events during mucosal transmission have been poorly characterized, and a better understanding of these events will probably be a key to the development of successful microbicide(s) and/or a preventative HIV vaccine. While a vast majority of mucosal HIV exposures do not result in productive infection, implying that innate mucosal immune defenses are highly protective, failure of these mucosal defenses resulted in over 3 million new HIV infections in 2006. We review recent findings regarding HIV mucosal immunopathogenesis, emphasizing the importance of innate immunity in natural protection from infection, and examine how natural or induced perturbations in the mucosal innate system may underpin HIV transmission. Given the great challenges to the development of HIV microbicides and vaccines, identification and enhancement of 'natural' innate immune defenses present attractive avenues for development of safe, non-toxic microbicides.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it