MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987482349 · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-s1-s12

Reconciling conflicting clinical studies of antioxidant supplementation as HIV therapy: a mathematical approach

2009· article· en· W1987482349 on OpenAlexafffund
Rolina D. van Gaalen, Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAntioxidantReactive oxygen speciesImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunosuppressionBiostatisticsApoptosisInternal medicineEpidemiologyBiologyCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Small, highly reactive molecules called reactive oxygen species (ROS) play a crucial role in cell signalling and infection control. However, high levels of ROS can cause significant damage to cell structure and function. Studies have shown that infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) results in increased ROS concentrations, which can in turn lead to faster progression of HIV infection, and cause CD4+ T-cell apoptosis. To counteract these effects, clinical studies have explored the possibility of raising antioxidant levels, with mixed results. METHODS: In this paper, a mathematical model is used to explore this potential therapy, both analytically and numerically. For the numerical work, we use clinical data from both HIV-negative and HIV-positive injection drug users (IDUs) to estimate model parameters; these groups have lower baseline concentrations of antioxidants than non-IDU controls. RESULTS: Our model suggests that increases in CD4+ T cell concentrations can result from moderate levels of daily antioxidant supplementation, while excessive supplementation has the potential to cause periods of immunosuppression. CONCLUSION: We discuss implications for HIV therapy in IDUs and other populations which may have low baseline concentrations of antioxidants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207