The delicate balance between neurotoxicity and neuroprotection in the context of <scp>HIV</scp>‐1 infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) causes a spectrum of neurological impairments, termed HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND), following the infiltration of infected cells into the brain. Even though the implementation of antiretroviral therapy reduced the systemic viral load, the prevalence of HAND remains unchanged and infected patients develop persisting neurological disturbances affecting their quality of life. As a result, HAND have gained importance in basic and clinical researches, warranting the need of developing new adjunctive treatments. Nonetheless, a better understanding of the molecular and cellular mechanisms remains necessary. Several studies consolidated their efforts into elucidating the neurotoxic signaling leading to HAND including the deleterious actions of HIV-1 viral proteins and inflammatory mediators. However, the scope of these studies is not sufficient to address all the complexity related to HAND development. Fewer studies focused on an altered neuroprotective capacity of the brain to respond to HIV-1 infection. Neurotrophic factors are endogenous polyproteins involved in neuronal survival, synaptic plasticity, and neurogenesis. Any defects in the processing or production of these crucial factors might compose a risk factor rendering the brain more vulnerable to neuronal damages. Due to their essential roles, they have been investigated for their diverse interplays with HIV-1 infection. In this review, we present a complete description of the neurotrophic factors involved in HAND. We discuss emerging concepts for their therapeutic applications and summarize the complex mechanisms that down-regulate their production in favor of a neurotoxic environment. For certain factors, we finally address opposing roles that rather lead to increased inflammation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".