MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136856576 · doi:10.3390/vaccines9030271

The Importance of Regulation in Natural Immunity to HIV

2021· review· en· W3136856576 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurence Blondin-Ladrie, Matheus Aranguren, Kim Doyon-Laliberté, Johanne Poudrier, Michel Roger

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccines · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyTransmission (telecommunications)BiologyImmunityMicrobicides for sexually transmitted diseasesVirologyImmune systemMedicineEnvironmental healthPopulationHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide, most Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infections are acquired through heterosexual intercourse, and in sub-Saharan Africa, 59% of new HIV infections affect women. Vaccines and microbicides hold promise for preventing the acquisition of HIV. To this end, the study of HIV highly exposed seronegative (HESN) female commercial sex workers (CSWs), who constitute a model of natural immunity to HIV, provides an exceptional opportunity to determine important clues for the development of preventive strategies. Studies using both female genital tract (FGT) and peripheral blood samples of HESN CSWs, have allowed identifying distinct features, notably low-inflammatory patterns associated with resistance to infection. How this seemingly regulated response is achieved at the initial site of HIV infection remains unknown. One hypothesis is that populations presenting regulatory profiles contribute to the orchestration of potent anti-viral and low-inflammatory responses at the initial site of HIV transmission. Here, we view to update our knowledge regarding this issue.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccinesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207