MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012777289 · doi:10.1089/aid.2006.22.1172

HIV Type 1 Subtypes among STI Patients in Nairobi: A Genotypic Study Based on Partial <i>pol</i> Gene Sequencing

2006· article· en· W2012777289 on OpenAlexaff
Raphael Lihana, Samoel Khamadi, Michael Kiptoo, Joyceline Kinyua, Nancy Lagat, Gabriel Magoma, Matilu Mwau, Ernest P. Makokha, Vincent Onyango, Saida Osman, Fredrick Okoth, Elijah Songok

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypeVirologyBiologyGeneHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circulating strains of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) exhibit an extraordinary degree of genetic diversity and have been classified on the basis of relationships into distinct lineages called groups, types, subtypes, and subsubtypes. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are known to be a risk factor for HIV infection. To establish HIV-1 subtype diversity among STI patients in Nairobi, 140 samples were collected and partial pol gene sequencing done. From the analysis it was established that subtype A1 was the major subtype (64%) followed by D (17%), C (9%), G (1%), and recombinants AD (4%), AC (3%), CRF02()AG (1%), and CRF16()A2D (1%). These results suggest that the HIV-1 epidemic may be evolving toward more virulent and complex subtypes through transmission of complex recombinants due to viral mixing. Any use of ARVs may therefore require initial testing for de novo resistance before commencement of treatment and/or management.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Research and Human RetrovirusesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207