MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090733782 · doi:10.1179/000349803225002561

The pathogenesis of<i>Leishmania</i>/HIV co-infection: cellular and immunological mechanisms

2003· review· en· W2090733782 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Olivier, Roberto Badaró, Francisco J. Medrano, Javier Moreno

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeishmaniaBiologyLeishmaniasisPathogenesisImmunologyVirologyLeishmania donovaniVisceral leishmaniasisParasite hosting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intracellular protozoan parasites of the genus Leishmania have been recognized as opportunistic pathogens in immunosuppressed individuals, including those infected with human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1). Leishmaniasis and AIDS overlap in several sub-tropical and tropical regions around the world, including the Mediterranean area. In 1994, 3%-7% of HIV-1-infected individuals in southern Europe developed visceral leishmaniasis. In humans, interestingly, both HIV-1 and Leishmania interact with, invade, and multiply within cells of myeloid or lymphoid origin. The combined modulation of Leishmania - and HIV-1-related pathogenesis in the co-infected cases is therefore probably a realistic goal. In the light of the recent demonstration that L. donovani can up-regulate HIV-1 replication, both in monocytoid and lymphoid cells in vitro and in co-infected individuals, it is clear from the epidemiological data available that Leishmania can probably act as a powerful co-factor in the pathogenesis of HIV-1 infection. In those who are co-infected, complex mechanisms involving cytokine secretion and cellular-signalling events play pivotal roles in the Leishmania-mediated activation and pathogenesis of HIV-1. An overview of the recent findings concerning this Leishmania/HIV-1 interaction is presented here.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations75
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Tropical Medicine and ParasitologySame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207