MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022104434 · doi:10.1097/coh.0b013e3283504941

Quality and quantity

2012· review· en· W2022104434 on OpenAlexaff
Lyle R. McKinnon, Rupert Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The HIV sexual transmission probability measured in the context of discordant couples appears too low to fuel the HIV pandemic, but these rates are substantially amplified by specific co-factors. The most consistent predictors of transmission are the HIV levels in the blood and genital tract of an infected individual, each of which increases the transmission probability in a dose-dependent manner. In an analogous fashion, we propose that both the quantity and quality of HIV-susceptible target cells in the exposed genital or rectal mucosa may be key predictors of HIV susceptibility. RECENT FINDINGS: The absolute number of mucosal CD4+ T cells is increased in several situations that are associated with amplified HIV transmission, particularly during genital infections. In addition, qualitative mucosal T-cell parameters such as immune activation and the expression of the HIV binding molecules CCR5 and/or α4β7 are important determinants of gp120 binding and productive HIV infection. In particular, the Th17 and Th22 cell subsets are enhanced within mucosal compartments and appear to be highly HIV-susceptible. SUMMARY: Blockade of specific HIV target cell subsets at the site of exposure, if done in a safe and effective manner, represents an opportunity for new HIV prevention tools.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations250
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207