MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Antibody Profiles Characteristic of<i>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</i>Infection State

2005· article· en· W2114476364 on OpenAlexaff
Amy L. Davidow, Ganga V. Kanaujia, Lanbo Shi, Justin Kaviar, Xudong Guo, Nackmoon Sung, Gilla Kaplan, Dick Menzies, Maria Laura Gennaro

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsTuberculosisMycobacterium tuberculosisBiologyAntigenAntibodyImmunologyImmune systemVirologyMicrobiologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between specific antibody profiles and tuberculosis (TB) state was investigated by measuring serum antibody levels to six Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in human subjects grouped into four diagnostic categories: active disease, inactive (past) tuberculosis, latent infection without radiographic chest abnormalities, and infection free. Statistical data analyses showed that the latter two groups were serologically indistinguishable and that active tuberculosis and inactive tuberculosis were characterized by different antibody profiles. Antibodies to the 38-kDa antigen, alanine dehydrogenase, and Rv2626c were associated with active TB, while antibodies to the 16-kDa antigen, ferredoxin A, and ESAT-6 were associated with inactive TB. Thus, the targets of the immune response vary with tuberculosis state. The correlation between bacterial antigen production and infection stage was investigated in mice infected with M. tuberculosis by bacterial transcription profiling. It was found that levels of transcripts encoding the six M. tuberculosis antigens varied during infection. Together, the data indicate that antigen composition of tubercle bacilli varies with stage of infection and that immunoprofiling can distinguish between tuberculosis states.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations110
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicTuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207