MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W50969593 · doi:10.2741/1230

Antiretroviral therapy influences cellular susceptibility to apoptosis in vivo

2004· article· en· W50969593 on OpenAlexafffund
L Cooper Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsNelfinavirApoptosisIn vivoCD8In vitroImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapyLymphocyteMedicinePharmacologyBiologyImmune systemViral loadBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been proposed that antiretroviral therapies (ART) possess both antiviral and immunomodulatory activities when used in HIV infected patients. Few studies have addressed whether these putative immunomodulatory effects are also seen in HIV negative patients, for example, when used for post exposure prophylaxis (PEP). We chose to evaluate immunologic function in HIV negative patients who received Nelfinavir and Combivir (AZT and 3TC) as PEP. Lymphocytes from patients taken immediately before, during, and after PEP were analyzed. No changes were seen in absolute or percent CD4 or CD8 T lymphocyte numbers, nor in markers of activation, memory, or co-stimulatory molecules. Surface expression of apoptosis-related ligands and receptors were unaltered, but apoptosis susceptibility was significantly inhibited by PEP (P less than 0.05). These data confirm in vitro that apoptosis susceptibility is altered by ART, including in HIV-negative patients who take PEP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in bioscienceSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207