MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116139129 · doi:10.1086/324005

Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV‐1)–Specific CD4<sup>+</sup>T Cell Immunity to<i>gag</i>in HIV‐1–Infected Individuals with Differential Disease Progression: Reciprocal Interferon‐γ and Interleukin‐10 Responses

2001· article· en· W2116139129 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Ostrowski, Jenny Gu, Colin Kovacs, John Freedman, Mark A. Luscher, Kelly S. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsELISPOTBiologyFlow cytometryVirologyImmunologyImmune systemT cellCellular immunityVirusInterferonImmunityGroup-specific antigenAntigenViral replication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific CD4(+) T cell response was investigated in 33 untreated HIV-1-infected individuals, using highly sensitive ELISPOT assays and intracellular flow cytometry. The median frequencies of interferon (IFN)-gamma-producing HIV-1 gag-specific CD4(+) T cells did not correlate significantly with control of viral replication or progression. HIV-1 gag-specific interleukin (IL)-4-producing cells were rarely detected. Circulating frequencies of CD4(+) T cells constitutively producing IL-10, however, were significantly higher in individuals with progression or active replication. In 17 of 30 HIV-1-infected individuals, gag antigen was observed to induce IL-10 production from CD4(+) T cells. In 2 individuals, early treatment of acute HIV-1 infection "rescued" low to undetectable gag-specific IFN-gamma-producing CD4(+) T cell responses and dramatically down-regulated constitutive IL-10 production from circulating CD4(+) T cells. The detection of HIV-1-specific IL-10-inducing CD4(+) T cells in HIV-1-infected individuals suggests that HIV-1 may directly subvert specific immune responses by IL-10 induction.

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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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