<i>In-utero</i>infection with HIV-1 associated with suppressed lymphoproliferative responses at birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-utero exposure to HIV-1 may affect the immune system of the developing child and may induce HIV-1-specific immune responses, even in the absence of HIV-1 infection. We evaluated lymphoproliferative capacity at birth among 40 HIV-1-uninfected infants born to HIV-1-infected mothers and 10 infants who had acquired HIV-1 in utero. Cord blood mononuclear cells were assayed using [(3) H]-thymidine incorporation for proliferation in response to HIV-1 p55-gag and the control stimuli phytohaemagglutinin (PHA), Staphylococcus enterotoxin B (SEB) and allogeneic cells. In response to HIV-1 p55-gag, eight (20%) HIV-1-exposed, uninfected (EU) infants had a stimulation index (SI) ≥ 2 and three (30%) in-utero HIV-1 infected infants had SI ≥2. The frequency and magnitude of responses to HIV-1 p55-gag were low overall, and did not differ statistically between groups. However, proliferative responses to control stimuli were significantly higher in EU infants than in infants infected in utero, with a median SI in response to PHA of 123 [interquartile range (IQR) 77-231] versus 18 (IQR 4-86) between EU and infected infants, respectively (P < 0·001). Among infected infants, gestational maturity was associated with the strength of HIV-1 p55-gag response (P < 0·001); neither maternal nor infant HIV-1 viral load was associated. In summary, EU and HIV-1-infected infants mounted HIV-1-specific lymphoproliferative responses at similar rates (20-30%), and although global immune function was preserved among EU infants, neonatal immune responses were significantly compromised by HIV-1 infection. Such early lymphoproliferative compromise may, in part, explain rapid progression to AIDS and death among HIV-1-infected infants.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".