MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212714974 · doi:10.1128/mbio.02490-21

HIV Proviral Burden, Genetic Diversity, and Dynamics in Viremic Controllers Who Subsequently Initiated Suppressive Antiretroviral Therapy

2021· article· en· W3212714974 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAIDS VancouverSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of CanadaNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BCWellcome Trust
KeywordsAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral replicationProvirusViral loadVirusLentivirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HIV therapy is lifelong because integrated, replication-competent viral copies persist within long-lived cells. To cure HIV, we need to understand when these viral reservoirs form, how large and genetically diverse they are, and how long they endure. Elite controllers-individuals who naturally suppress HIV to undetectable levels-are being intensely studied as models of HIV remission, but viremic controllers, individuals who naturally suppress HIV to low levels, remain understudied even though they too may hold valuable insights. We combined phylogenetics and mathematical modeling to reconstruct proviral seeding and decay from infection to therapy-mediated suppression in four viremic controllers. We recovered diverse proviruses persisting during therapy that broadly reflected HIV's within-host evolutionary history, where the estimated half-lives of the persistent proviral pool during untreated infection ranged from <1 year to negligible. Cure strategies will need to contend with proviral diversity and between-host heterogeneity, even in individuals who naturally control HIV.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207