MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Why is HIV not vector‐borne?

2008· article· en· W1883944232 on OpenAlexafffund
Troy Day, Nicole Mideo, Samuel Alizon

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Applications · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTransmission (telecommunications)Dengue feverVirologyVector (molecular biology)Dengue virusNatural selectionEvolutionary biologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral evolutionMalariaImmunologyEnvironmental healthGeneticsGenomePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many pathogens of humans are blood borne, including HIV, Malaria, Hepatitis B and C, West Nile virus, Dengue, and other viral hemorrhagic fevers. Although several of these pathogens are transmitted by blood-feeding arthropods, HIV is not. A number of properties of HIV and its life cycle have been identified as proximate explanations for the absence of arthropod transmission, but little consideration has been given to why HIV has not evolved this form of transmission. We consider the empirical evidence for arthropod transmission, and suggest that mechanical transmission has not evolved in HIV because such strains would induce a faster onset of AIDS during infection, which would thereby limit their ability to spread. On the other hand, it is not as clear why biological transmission has not occurred. Available data suggests that a lack of appropriate genetic variation in HIV is one explanation, but it is also possible that a conflict between natural selection occurring within and between infected individuals has prevented its evolution instead. We discuss the potential significance of these ideas, and argue that taking such an evolutionary perspective broadens our understanding of infectious diseases and the potential consequences of public health interventions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary ApplicationsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207