Comparison of Prevalence of Kaposi's Sarcoma in HHV8+ and HHV8- HIV Infected Patients in South-South Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out to see if there are any differences between the prevalence of Kaposi’s sarcoma in HIVinfected patients with antibody to Human Herpes Virus 8 (HHV8) or not.Methods: The sera of 180 subjects were evaluated for HIV and HHV8 using double ELISA (Genscreen UltraHIV Ag-Ab ELISA and JN HIV 1/2 ELISA Kit) for HIV screening and advanced Biotechnology IncorporatedELISA for HHV8 IgG antibody detection respectively. Those HIV infected patients that had skin lesionssuspected to be Kaposi’s sarcoma were biopsied for histological diagnosis.Results: A total of 180 subjects were recorded for this study. The ratio of male: female was 1:1.02. In all, 100subjects tested positive to HIV screening and 87 (87%) patients tested positive to HHV8 antibody. Of the 87patients that were positive to HHV8 antibodies 32 (36.7%) were histologically confirmed to have Kaposi’ssarcoma.Conclusion: We found a high rate of prevalence of Kaposi’s sarcoma KS among HIV infected patients withHHV8 antibodies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".