MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118663100 · doi:10.1086/498576

Disproportionately High Semen Shedding of HIV Is Associated with Compartmentalized Cytomegalovirus Reactivation

2005· article· en· W2118663100 on OpenAlexaff
Prameet M. Sheth, Ali Danesh, Anthony Sheung, Anuradha Rebbapragada, Kamnoosh Shahabi, Colin Kovacs, Roberta Halpenny, David Tilley, Tony Mazzulli, Kelly S. MacDonald, David J. Kelvin, Rupert Kaul

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemenSexual transmissionImmunologyViral sheddingVirologyViral loadBiologyHuman cytomegalovirusCytomegalovirusHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineAndrologyViral diseaseVirusHerpesviridaeMicrobicide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semen transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drives the global pandemic. HIV loads are generally lower in semen than in blood, but semen loads may be disproportionately high in a subgroup of men. HIV loads in semen exceeded those in blood in 9 (35%) of 26 of antiretroviral therapy-naive men, and disproportionately high shedding was strongly associated with compartmentalized semen cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation (odds ratio [OR], 10.5; P<.01). Overall, 17 of 26 participants were shedding CMV in semen. Semen levels of HIV and CMV were closely correlated (r=0.5; P<.01), independently of blood HIV load and CD4(+) T cell count. Prevention of CMV reactivation warrants further study as a possible strategy to reduce semen shedding of HIV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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