MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poxviruses and Immune Evasion

2003· review· en· W2115668602 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce T. Seet, James B. Johnston, Craig R. Brunetti, John W. Barrett, Helen Everett, Cheryl Cameron, Joanna Sypula, Steven H. Nazarian, Alexandra Lucas, Grant McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Immunology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChemokineInnate immune systemImmune systemImmunologyImmunityEvasion (ethics)InflammationGeneSignal transductionVirologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large DNA viruses defend against hostile assault executed by the host immune system by producing an array of gene products that systematically sabotage key components of the inflammatory response. Poxviruses target many of the primary mediators of innate immunity including interferons, tumor necrosis factors, interleukins, complement, and chemokines. Poxviruses also manipulate a variety of intracellular signal transduction pathways such as the apoptotic response. Many of the poxvirus genes that disrupt these pathways have been hijacked directly from the host immune system, while others have demonstrated no clear resemblance to any known host genes. Nonetheless, the immunological targets and the diversity of strategies used by poxviruses to disrupt these host pathways have provided important insights into diverse aspects of immunology, virology, and inflammation. Furthermore, because of their anti-inflammatory nature, many of these poxvirus proteins hold promise as potential therapeutic agents for acute or chronic inflammatory conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations665
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of ImmunologySame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207