MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974700517 · doi:10.1111/aji.12035

Genital immunology and HIV susceptibility in young women

2012· review· en· W1974700517 on OpenAlexafffund
Tae Joon Yi, Brett Shannon, Jessica L. Prodger, Lyle R. McKinnon, Rupert Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Reproductive Immunology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSex organImmunologyImmune systemPopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineYoung adultEpidemiologyPhysiologyBiologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women account for a substantial majority of HIV infections in endemic regions, where women are also infected at a much younger age than men. Part of this epidemiological skewing is due to socio-cultural factors, but it is clear that biological factors enhance the susceptibility of women--particularly young women--to HIV acquisition after sexual exposure. These factors, including important differences in mucosal immunology at the site of genital HIV exposure, are the focus of this concise review. Compared to heterosexual men, women have an increased surface area of mucosal HIV exposure, increased mucosal expression of the HIV co-receptor CCR5 and a greater probability of virus exposure on the rectal mucosa. Differences that are specific to young women include a pro-inflammatory immune environment and a proportionate increase in single-cell, columnar genital epithelium. These important biological reasons for enhanced HIV susceptibility in young women highlight the need for targeted HIV prevention within this vulnerable population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Reproductive ImmunologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207