MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799457316 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006129

Effects of spatiotemporal HSV-2 lesion dynamics and antiviral treatment on the risk of HIV-1 acquisition

2018· article· en· W2799457316 on OpenAlexafffund
Catherine Byrne, Soren Gantt, Daniel Coombs

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHerpesvirus Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridCompute Canada
KeywordsHSL and HSVLesionHerpes simplex virusImmune systemMedicineSex organHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyVirusVirologyInternal medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with Herpes Simplex Virus-2 (HSV-2) infection face a significantly higher risk of contracting HIV-1. This is thought to be due to herpetic lesions serving as entry points for HIV-1 and tissue-resident CD4+ T cell counts increasing during HSV-2 lesional events. We have created a stochastic and spatial mathematical model describing the dynamics of HSV-2 infection and immune response in the genital mucosa. Using our model, we first study the dynamics of a developing HSV-2 lesion. We then use our model to quantify the risk of infection with HIV-1 following sexual exposure in HSV-2 positive women. Untreated, we find that HSV-2 infected women are up to 8.6 times more likely to acquire HIV-1 than healthy patients. However, when including the effects of the HSV-2 antiviral drug, pritelivir, the risk of HIV-1 infection is predicted to decrease by up to 35%, depending on drug dosage. We estimate the relative importance of decreased tissue damage versus decreased CD4+ cell presence in determining the effectiveness of pritelivir in reducing HIV-1 infection. Our results suggest that clinical trials should be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of pritelivir or similar agents in preventing HIV-1 infection in HSV-2 positive women.

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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicHerpesvirus Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207