MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191688693 · doi:10.1097/id9.0000000000000012

HIV Compartmentalization in Male Genital Tract: Relevance for Viral Eradication

2021· article· en· W3191688693 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaorong Peng, Stéphane Isnard, John Lin, Brandon Fombuena, Léna Royston, Jean‐Pierre Routy

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Diseases & Immunity · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHIV Legal NetworkMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompartmentalization (fire protection)BiologyGenitourinary systemImmune systemHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyGenital tractVirologyPhysiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been shown to evolve independently in different anatomical compartments. Characterizing HIV genetic evolution in different tissues and cells provides insights into the mechanisms that maintain the viral reservoir. HIV compartmentalization has been well documented in the semen but rarely in male genital tract (MGT) organs. The precise mechanisms that result in the development of HIV compartmentalization in multiple genitourinary sites have been poorly explored due to the difficulty in accessing these tissues. Based on evidence from lymph nodes and gut tissues, mechanisms that may influence compartmentalization include immune pressures, local concentrations of antiviral drugs, clonal expansion of different cell types and inflammation that alters the cellular microenvironment. We reviewed phylogenetic evidences supporting viral compartmentalization between the blood and multiple genitourinary sites in HIV-infected people. Characterizing distinct viral sub-populations enhances our overall understanding of the HIV reservoir in MGT and could ultimately lead to the development of novel therapies to eradicate the virus in tissues.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfectious Diseases & ImmunitySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207