Elevated humoral response to cytomegalovirus in HIV-infected individuals with poor CD4+ T-cell immune recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some HIV-infected c-ART-suppressed individuals show incomplete CD4+ T-cell recovery, abnormal T-cell activation and higher mortality. One potential source of immune activation could be coinfection with cytomegalovirus (CMV). IgG and IgM levels, immune activation, inflammation and T-cell death in c-ART-suppressed individuals with CD4+ T-cell counts >350 cells/μL (immunoconcordant, n = 133) or <350 cells/μL (immunodiscordant, n = 95) were analyzed to evaluate the effect of CMV humoral response on immune recovery. In total, 27 HIV-uninfected individuals were included as controls. In addition, the presence of CMV IgM antibodies was retrospectively analyzed in 58 immunoconcordant individuals and 66 immunodiscordant individuals. Increased CMV IgG levels were observed in individuals with poor immune reconstitution (p = 0.0002). Increased CMV IgG responses were significantly correlated with lower nadir and absolute CD4+ T-cell counts. In contrast, CMV IgG responses were positively correlated with activation (HLA-DR+) and death markers in CD4+ T-cells and activated memory CD8+ T-cells (CD45RA-CD38+). Longitudinal subanalysis revealed an increased frequency of IgM+ samples in individuals with poor CD4+ T-cell recovery, and an association was observed between retrospective IgM positivity and the current level of IgG. The magnitude of the humoral immune response to CMV is associated with nadir CD4+ T-cell counts, inflammation, immune activation and CD4+ T-cell death, thus suggesting that CMV infection may be a relevant driving force in the increased morbidity/mortality observed in HIV+ individuals with poor CD4+ T-cell recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".