Detection of HTLV-1 in the Labial Salivary Glands of Patients with Sjögren’s Syndrome: A Distinct Clinical Subgroup?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients with Sjögren's syndrome (SS) can be distinguished based on the expression of human T cell lymphotrophic virus type I (HTLV-1) and, if so, whether the subgroups differ in their clinical features and serological measures. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nested PCR were used to amplify viral DNA from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) in 53 patients with SS, using primers from the HTLV-1 pX, p19, pol, and tax regions. Minor salivary gland biopsy specimens from 33 patients with SS were examined for the presence of HTLV-1 p19 or tax proteins immunohistochemically. The sociodemographic, glandular, and extraglandular manifestations, and laboratory findings including autoantibodies, complement, and immunoglobulin levels, were analyzed. RESULTS: The HTLV-1 tax gene was detected in PBMC samples from 2 of 53 patients (3.8%), whereas the HTLV-1 pX, p19, and pol genes were not expressed. As well, 100% of PBMC samples from 4 family members of patients in whom the tax gene was detected also expressed the tax gene. Immunohistochemical staining for HTLV-1 p19 and tax was seen in 10 out of 33 (30.3%) patients with SS each. Overall, 14 (42.4%) patients expressed HTLV-1 p19 or tax proteins, and they had lower rheumatoid factor and C3 levels (p = 0.015 and p = 0.005, respectively) and higher lymphocyte counts (p = 0.016). The prevalence of glandular and extraglandular manifestations did not differ between the HTLV-1-positive and negative patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HTLV-1 in the salivary glands is involved in the pathogenesis of a subpopulation of SS, and HTLV-1-associated SS might have different immunological patterns than idiopathic SS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".