MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103101706 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jis621

Immunoglobulin-Specific Responses to Chlamydia Elementary Bodies in Individuals with and at Risk for Genital Chlamydial Infection

2012· article· en· W2103101706 on OpenAlexaff
William M. Geisler, Sandra G. Morrison, M. L. Doemland, Shabana Iqbal, Jin Su, A. Mancevski, Edward W. Hook, Richard P. Morrison

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsChlamydiaSeroprevalenceChlamydia trachomatisAntibodyImmunologySex organBiologyImmunoglobulin GSerotypeImmunoglobulin MImmunoglobulin AChlamydialesChlamydiaceaeSerologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renewed interest in chlamydia vaccination has revealed the need for a greater understanding of the seroprevalence of chlamydial infection in US populations. We used a Chlamydia trachomatis elementary body (EB)-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to define the characteristics of the humoral immune response and to determine seroprevalence. Two groups were analyzed: one consisting of patients with current, laboratory confirmed, genital chlamydial infection (n = 98) and one group of individuals whose chlamydia infection history was unknown (n = 367). C. trachomatis seropositivity was detected in 90% of the infected group and in 31% of the chlamydia-unknown group. IgG1 and IgG3 comprised the predominant anti-Chlamydia serum antibody responses. Serum IgA1 responses were variably positive, and individuals were rarely positive for anti-chlamydia IgG2, IgG4 or IgA2. The magnitude of the IgG1 and IgG3 responses was greatest in female and African American individuals and was sustained for at least 6 months. Antibody responses were not serovar restricted or confounded by Chlamydia pneumoniae cross-reactivity.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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