MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2081537284 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0906913106

Sex, microbial translocation, and the African HIV epidemic

2009· letter· en· W2081537284 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Lester, Walter Jaoko, Francis A. Plummer, Rupert Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Chromosomal translocationBiologyVirologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redd et al. (1) suggest that microbial translocation is not an important contributor to HIV disease progression in Africa, in contrast to its possible role in HIV pathogenesis in North American cohorts (2–4). They further postulate that this discrepancy may relate to mode of HIV transmission, because the Ugandan cohort in which they base their study is composed of heterosexual men and women, whereas North American cohorts typically contain more men who have sex with men and injection drug users. These conclusions are based on a study in which they prospectively examined whether plasma markers of microbial translocation correlated with HIV progression and found that they did not. However, we suggest that these data are not sufficient to conclude that microbial translocation is not an important contributor to HIV disease in Africa.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→