MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mucosal and plasma IgA from HIV-exposed seronegative individuals neutralize a primary HIV-1 isolate

2000· article· en· W2156141826 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Devito, Jorma Hinkula, Rupert Kaul, Lucia Lopalco, Job J. Bwayo, Francis A. Plummer, Mario Clerici, Kristina Broliden

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalivaImmunologyImmunoglobulin APeripheral blood mononuclear cellHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyBiologyAntibodyMedicineImmunoglobulin GIn vitroInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize functional properties of HIV-specific IgA in samples representing both systemic and mucosal compartments of HIV-1 highly exposed persistently seronegative (HEPS) individuals. METHODS: IgA was purified from plasma and mucosal samples from HEPS individuals and tested for the ability to neutralize infection of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) by a non-syncytium inducing HIV-1 (clade B) primary isolate. None of these individuals had measurable HIV-1-specific IgG. RESULTS: HIV-1-specific neutralizing activity of the purified IgA from plasma (n = 15), saliva (n = 15) and cervicovaginal fluid (CVF) (n = 14) were found in the majority of samples (73, 73 and 79%, respectively). In contrast, plasma, saliva and CVF samples of low-risk, uninfected HIV-seronegative individuals lacked neutralizing IgA, with the exception of two out of 34 (6%) saliva samples. CONCLUSION: Mucosal and plasma IgA from HEPS individuals can neutralize HIV-1 infection.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations192
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207