MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996976401 · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000077

Immunosenescence and aging in HIV

2014· review· en· W1996976401 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris Tsoukas

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunosenescenceHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyMedicineImmunologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: During this era of unprecedented antiretroviral therapeutic efficacy, there is hope for successfully treated individuals to achieve a longevity approaching that of the general population. However, the recent identification of a higher incidence of cardiovascular, bone, metabolic, neurocognitive and other aging comorbidities is of major concern and may compromise that ability. The purpose of this review is to focus on the dynamic process of immune remodelling, known as immune senescence, which occurs during HIV infection, and how it impacts on long-term comorbidities. RECENT FINDINGS: Early aging in those with HIV appears to stem from persistent chronic inflammation and residual immune activation despite successful antiretroviral therapy. Multiple similarities exist between the T-cell-senescent phenotypes found in many chronic autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, including HIV disease, and the elderly. The immune risk phenotype is linked to poor clinical outcomes in the elderly and may also have clinical consequences in those with HIV. SUMMARY: Immune senescence results in functional impairments of immunity and a reduced ability to adapt to metabolic stress. Understanding the factors driving the development of immune senescence is critical for the development of strategies to prevent early aging.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV-related health complications and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207