Evidence of greater immune aging among untreated HIV slow progressors than antiretroviral-controlled people living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled HIV viremia results in the progression to AIDS, however, this can be stopped with antiretroviral therapy (ART). Slow progressors are rare individuals who can prevent or delay HIV disease progression without ART. It is unknown whether they experience immune aging akin to normal progressors on ART. METHODS: We investigated persons living with HIV (PWH) who were either HIV slow progressors (n = 58), PWH on ART with undetectable HIV viremia (n = 58), or PWH not on ART with detectable viremia (n = 26), and 56 controls without HIV. The groups were well matched for age and sex. A panel of T-cell differentiation and immune aging markers was measured, along with T and B cell subset telomere length, adjusting for major confounders. RESULTS: Relative to the ART-suppressed HIV group, slow progressors showed immune aging markers indicative of more advanced aging, including lower CD8 naïve:effector memory ratio (standardized effect size -0.41 [95% CI -0.74, -0.07]), and shorter telomere length in B cells (-0.52 [-0.97, -0.07]), CD4 T cells (-0.58 [-0.94, -0.23]), and proliferative CD8 cells (-0.41 [-0.80, -0.01]). Comparison of slow progressors with the control group without HIV showed the same effects. Further, within the slow progressor group, immune aging patterns for the subgroup of elite controllers were not different. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that despite natural host control of HIV replication, slow progressors show evidence of disproportionately advanced immune aging. This reinforces the potential benefit of ART and emphasizes the need to both diagnose slow progressors and study their potential age-related comorbidities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".