MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2145143608 · doi:10.1101/006676

Regulatory vs. helper CD4 <sup>+</sup> T-cell ratios and the progression of HIV/AIDS disease

2014· preprint· en· W2145143608 on OpenAlexaff
Wilfred Ndifon, Jonathan Dushoff, Daniel Coombs

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEffectorImmunologyDiseaseHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)T cellBiologyCd4 t cellImmune systemVirologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The causes of individual variability in the length of time between human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the development of AIDS are incompletely understood. Here, we present a novel hypothesis: that the relative magnitude of responses to HIV mediated by CD4 + T regulatory (Treg) cells vs. CD4 + T effector (Teff) cells is a critical determinant of variability in AIDS progression rates. We use a simple mathematical model to show that this hypothesis can plausibly explain three qualitatively different outcomes of HIV infection – fast or slow progression to AIDS, and long-term non-progression to AIDS – based on individual variation in underlying T-cell response. This hypothesis also provides a unifying explanation for various other empirical observations, suggesting in particular that both aging and certain dual infections increase the rate of AIDS progression because they increase the strength of the Treg cell response. We discuss potential therapeutic implications of our results.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→