MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163178976 · doi:10.1128/cvi.05583-11

Human Endogenous Retrovirus K(HML-2) Gag- and Env-Specific T-Cell Responses Are Infrequently Detected in HIV-1-Infected Subjects Using Standard Peptide Matrix-Based Screening

2011· article· en· W2163178976 on OpenAlexaff
R. Brad Jones, Vivek M. John, Diana V. Hunter, Eric S. Martin, Shariq Mujib, Vesna Mihajlovic, Peter C. Burgers, Theo M. Luider, Gábor Gyenes, Neil C. Sheppard, Devi SenGupta, Ravi Tandon, FengYun Yue, Erika Benko, Colin Kovacs, Douglas F. Nixon, Mario Ostrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Vaccine Immunology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMaple Leaf Medical ClinicSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsPeptideVirologyGroup-specific antigenRetrovirusBiologyEndogenyEndogenous retrovirusMolecular biologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirusGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T-cell responses to human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) K(HML-2) Gag and Env were mapped in HIV-1-infected subjects using 15 mer peptides. Small peptide pools and high concentrations were used to maximize sensitivity. In the 23 subjects studied, only three bona fide HERV-K(HML-2)-specific responses were detected. At these high peptide concentrations, we detected false-positive responses, three of which were mapped to an HIV-1 Gag peptide contaminant. Thus, HERV-K(HML-2) Gag- and Env-specific T-cell responses are infrequently detected by 15 mer peptide mapping.

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)0.001
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.301
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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Vaccine ImmunologySame topicvaccines and immunoinformatics approachesFrench-language works237,207