MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106114611 · doi:10.1086/318092

The HLA A2/6802 Supertype Is Associated with Reduced Risk of Perinatal Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Transmission

2001· article· en· W2106114611 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly S. MacDonald, Joanne E. Embree, Nico J. D. Nagelkerke, José Brea del Castillo, Susie Ramhadin, Simon Njenga, Julius Oyug, J.O. Ndinya‐Achola, Brian H. Barber, Job J. Bwayo, Francis A. Plummer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuman leukocyte antigenOdds ratioImmunologyVirologyEpitopeTransmission (telecommunications)AlleleCohortBiologyMedicineAntibodyAntigenGeneticsInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Certain HLAs may, in part, account for differences in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) susceptibility by presenting conserved immunogenic epitopes for T cell recognition. The HLA supertype A2/6802 is associated with decreased susceptibility to HIV-1 among sex workers. The alleles in this supertype present the same HIV-1 peptide epitopes for T cell recognition in some cases. This study sought to determine whether the HLA A2/6802 supertype influenced HIV-1 transmission in a prospective cohort of HIV-1-infected mothers and children in Kenya. Decreased perinatal HIV-1 infection risk was strongly associated with possession of a functional cluster of related HLA alleles, called the A2/6802 supertype (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.54; P=.006). This effect was independent of the protective effect of maternal-child HLA discordance. These data provide further evidence that HLA supertypes are associated with differential susceptibility to HIV-1 transmission.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207