MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024667988 · doi:10.1111/jeb.12518

Coinfection and the evolution of drug resistance

2014· article· en· W2024667988 on OpenAlexafffund
Johanna J. H. Hansen, Troy Day

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCoinfectionResistance (ecology)Evolutionary biologyDrug resistanceGeneticsEcologyVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent experimental work in the rodent malaria model has shown that when two or more strains share a host, there is competitive release of drug-resistant strains upon treatment. In other words, the propagule output of a particular strain is repressed when competing with other strains and increases upon the removal of this competition. This within-host effect is predicted to have an important impact on the evolution and growth of resistant strains. However, how this effect translates to epidemiological parameters at the between-host level, the level at which disease and resistance spread, has yet to be determined. Here we present a general, between-host epidemiological model that explicitly takes into account the effect of coinfection and competitive release. Although our model does show that when there is coinfection competitive release may contribute to the emergence of resistance, it also highlights an additional between-host effect. It is the combination of these two effects, the between-host effect and the within-host effect, that determines the overall influence of coinfection on the emergence of resistance. Therefore, even when competitive release of drug-resistant strains occurs, within an infected individual, it is not necessarily true that coinfection will result in the increased emergence of resistance. These results have important implications for the control of the emergence and spread of drug resistance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.395
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207