The association between herpes simplex virus type 1 infection and Alzheimer’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There are growing evidences demonstrating the relationship between herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV‐1) infection and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Method We searched Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases for relevant articles. Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the qualities of these studies. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random‐effects models. We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by apolipoprotein ε4 (APOE ε4), NOS score and the method of confirming AD. Result A total of 21 studies between 1990 and 2020 were identified. The pooled OR suggested that HSV‐1 infection is a risk factor of AD: pooled OR 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13‐1.75; I2 = 3%, P = 0.42). In the subgroup analyses, the pooled ORs of HSV‐1 infection associated with AD were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.24‐2.37) among the APOE ε4 positive individuals; 0.85 (95% CI: 0.61‐1.17) among the APOE ε4 negative individuals; 1.51 (95% CI: 1.10‐2.06) in the high NOS score studies; 1.23 (95% CI: 0.85‐1.76) in the moderate NOS score studies; 1.47 (95% CI: 1.16‐1.87) in the clinical diagnosis group, 1.20 (95% CI: 0.77‐1.87) in the autopsy group, respectively. Conclusion Our systematic review and meta‐analysis suggest that HSV‐1 infection is a risk factor of Alzheimer’s Disease.
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 | 0.011 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".