MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432649889 · doi:10.1097/coh.0000000000000230

Residual inflammation and viral reservoirs

2015· review· en· W2432649889 on OpenAlexaff
Marta Massanella, Rémi Fromentin, Nicolas Chomont

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsInflammationPersistence (discontinuity)Viral replicationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Virus latencyAntiretroviral therapyImmunologyImmune systemBiologyVirologyViral loadMedicineVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV persists in cellular and anatomical reservoirs during antiretroviral therapy (ART). Viral persistence is ensured by a variety of mechanisms including ongoing viral replication and proliferation of latently infected cells. In this review, we summarize recent findings establishing a link between the unresolved levels of inflammation observed in virally suppressed individuals on ART and the mechanisms responsible for HIV persistence. RECENT FINDINGS: Residual levels of viral replication during ART are associated with persistent low levels of immune activation, suggesting that unresolved inflammation can promote the replenishment of the HIV reservoir in tissues. In addition, the recent findings that the latent HIV reservoir is maintained by continuous proliferation of latently infected cells provide another mechanism by which residual inflammation could contribute to HIV persistence. SUMMARY: Residual inflammation during ART is likely to be a critical parameter contributing to HIV persistence. Therefore, reducing inflammation may be an efficient way to interfere with the maintenance of the HIV reservoir in virally suppressed individuals on ART.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations140
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207