MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Erythrocyte variants and the nature of their malaria protective effect

2005· review· en· W2019150192 on OpenAlexaff
Gundula Min‐Oo, Philippe Gros

Bibliographic record

VenueCellular Microbiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMalariaPlasmodium (life cycle)DiseaseCerebral MalariaPlasmodium falciparumVector (molecular biology)ImmunologyMechanism (biology)GeneParasite hostingVirologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The malaria threat to global health is exacerbated by widespread drug resistance in the Plasmodium parasite and its insect vector, and the lack of an efficacious vaccine. Infection with Plasmodium parasites can cause a wide spectrum of pathologies, from a transient mild form of anaemia to a severe and rapidly fatal cerebral disease. Epidemiological studies in humans and experiments in animal models have shown that genetic factors play a key role in the onset, progression, type of disease developed and ultimate outcome of malaria. The protective effect of polymorphic variants in erythrocyte-specific structural proteins or metabolic enzymes against the blood-stage of the disease is one of the clearest illustrations of this genetic modulation, and has suggested co-evolution of the Plasmodium parasite with its human host in areas of endemic disease. Here, we present a brief overview of erythrocyte polymorphisms with biological relevance to malaria pathogenesis, and current work on the mechanism(s) by which these mediate their protective effect. The recent addition of erythrocyte pyruvate kinase to this group of protective genes will also be discussed.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations111
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellular MicrobiologySame topicMalaria Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207