MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157370631 · doi:10.1086/323443

Evidence for Superantigen Involvement in Severe Group A Streptococcal Tissue Infections

2001· article· en· W2157370631 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Norrby‐Teglund, Pontus Thulin, Bing Siang Gan, Malak Kotb, Allison McGeer, Jan Andersson, Donald E. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research CouncilKarolinska InstitutetNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsSuperantigenFasciitisImmunologyCellulitisBiopsyMedicineCytokineChemokinePathologyBiologyImmune systemT cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host-pathogen interactions were studied in tissue biopsy samples from patients with severe invasive group A streptococcus (GAS) infections. Skin, subcutaneous tissue, and fascia biopsy samples were divided into clinical grade 1 (no evidence of inflammation [n=7]) or clinical grade 2 (inflamed tissue--erythema and edema including cellulitis, fasciitis, and necrotizing fasciitis [n=24]). In situ imaging demonstrated significantly higher bacterial load in biopsy samples of higher clinical grade (P<.05), and the bacterial load correlated with the in vivo expression of the superantigen streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin F (P<.02). Increased expression of the interleukin-1 cytokines and significantly higher expression of tumor necrosis factor-beta, interferon-gamma, and the homing receptors CC chemokine receptor 5, CD44, and cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (P<.002-.05) were observed in biopsy samples of higher clinical grade. Thus, the cytokine profile at the local site of infection mimics that of a typical superantigen cytokine response. The findings of this study demonstrate a critical role for superantigens and Th1 cytokines in GAS tissue infections.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations129
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207