Protective Immunity Against Hepatitis C: Many Shades of Gray
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of individuals who become acutely infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) develop chronic infection and suffer from progressive liver damage while approximately 25% are able to eliminate the virus spontaneously. Despite the recent introduction of new direct-acting antivirals, there is still no vaccine for HCV. As a result, new infections and reinfections will remain a problem in developing countries and among high risk populations like injection drug users who have limited access to treatment and who continue to be exposed to the virus. The outcome of acute HCV is determined by the interplay between the host genetics, the virus, and the virus-specific immune response. Studies in humans and chimpanzees have demonstrated the essential role of HCV-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses in protection against viral persistence. Recent data suggest that antibody responses play a more important role than what was previously thought. Individuals who spontaneously resolve acute HCV infection develop long-lived memory T cells and are less likely to become persistently infected upon reexposure. New studies examining high risk cohorts are identifying correlates of protection during real life exposures and reinfections. In this review, we discuss correlates of protective immunity during acute HCV and upon reexposure. We draw parallels between HCV and the current knowledge about protective memory in other models of chronic viral infections. Finally, we discuss some of the yet unresolved questions about key correlates of protection and their relevance for vaccine development against HCV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".