Processing of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid and Matched Blood for Alveolar Macrophage and CD4<sup>+</sup> T-cell Immunophenotyping and HIV Reservoir Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bronchoscopy is a medical procedure whereby normal saline is injected into the lungs via a bronchoscope and then suction is applied, removing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid. The BAL fluid is rich in cells and can thus provide a 'snapshot' of the pulmonary immune milieu. CD4 T cells are the best characterized HIV reservoirs, while there is strong evidence to suggest that tissue macrophages, including alveolar macrophages (AMs), also serve as viral reservoirs. However, much is still unknown about the role of AMs in the context of HIV reservoir establishment and maintenance. Therefore, developing a protocol for processing BAL fluid to obtain cells that may be used in virological and immunological assays to characterize and evaluate the cell populations and subsets within the lung is relevant for understanding the role of the lungs as HIV reservoirs. Herein, we describe such a protocol, employing standard techniques such as simple centrifugation and flow cytometry. The CD4 T cells and AMs may then be used for subsequent applications, including immunophenotyping and HIV DNA and RNA quantification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".