MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752618367 · doi:10.1186/s12981-017-0164-9

Potential contribution of gut microbiota and systemic inflammation on HIV vaccine effectiveness and vaccine design

2017· review· en· W2752618367 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean‐Pierre Routy, Vikram Mehraj

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Research and Therapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsMedicineImmune systemImmunologyVaccinationDysbiosisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)InflammationHIV vaccineSystemic inflammationVaccine efficacyVaccine trialGut flora

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quest for an effective HIV-1 vaccine began as soon as the virus causing AIDS was identified. After several disappointing attempts, results of the Phase-III RV144 trial in Thailand were a beacon of hope for the field demonstrating correlation between protection and immunological markers. In order to optimize vaccine response, we underline results from yellow fever and hepatitis B vaccines, where protective responses were predicted by the pre-vaccination level of immune activation in healthy individuals. Such findings support the assessment and reduction of pre-vaccine immune activation in order to optimize vaccine response. Immune activation in healthy individuals can be influenced by age, presence of CMV infection, gut dysbiosis and microbial translocation. We speculate that the level of immune activation should therefore be assessed to better select participants in vaccine trials, and interventions to reduce inflammation should be used to increase protective HIV vaccine response.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Research and TherapySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207