MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087063035 · doi:10.1086/432070

Immunoepidemiologic Profile of<i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i>Infection: Importance of Heat‐Shock Protein 60 and Interferon‐γ

2005· article· en· W2087063035 on OpenAlexaff
Craig R. Cohen, Kasra M. Koochesfahani, Amalia S. Meier, Caixia Shen, Karuna P. Karunakaran, Beartrice Ondondo, Teresa Kinyari, Nelly Mugo, Rosemary Nguti, Robert C. Brunham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChlamydia trachomatisImmunologyChlamydiaImmune systemImmunityBiologyPeripheral blood mononuclear cellHeat shock proteinInterferon gammaInterferonChlamydiaceaeVirologyMedicineIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological, animal, and in vitro investigations suggest that Chlamydia trachomatis infection engenders acquired immunity, the basis for which is incompletely defined, especially in humans. In a prospective cohort study of women at high risk for C. trachomatis infection, we found that, at baseline and after adjustment for age and other potential confounding variables, production of interferon- gamma by peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) stimulated with chlamydia heat-shock protein 60 strongly correlated with protection against incident C. trachomatis infection. This investigation supports a direct role for C. trachomatis-specific immune responses in altering the risk of infection and suggests immune correlates of protection that are potentially useful in vaccine development.

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 score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
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 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

Citations127
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207