MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Mucosal and Systemic Antibody Responses in Humans Infected with Simian Foamy Virus

2005· article· en· W2037302868 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Cummins, Roumiana S. Boneva, William M. Switzer, Logan Christensen, Paul Sandstrom, Walid Heneine, Louisa E. Chapman, Charlene S. Dezzutti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsBiologyVirologyAntibodyHumoral immunityImmune systemSalivaVirusSimian immunodeficiency virusTiterImmunoglobulin AImmunologyImmunoglobulin GSimianImmunity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simian foamy virus (SFV) infection and the subsequent immune response are not well characterized. Blood plasma, saliva, and urine were obtained from four humans and nine chimpanzees persistently infected with chimpanzee-type SFV for an unknown length of time. SFV-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, but not IgA antibodies, against the Gag and Bet proteins were detected, by Western blotting, in all sample types from infected humans and chimpanzees. Overall, chimpanzee samples had higher anti-SFV IgG titers than humans. These results provide a first comparative evaluation of SFV-specific host mucosal humoral immunity in infected humans and chimpanzees that is characterized by a predominant IgG response and a virtually absent IgA response.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Virology→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→