Pretty cool shit ohm.
I see it is alphabetized.
Great work.
do you think the new protocol will measure the level of viremia by measuring CD4 and CD8?
Certainly, given that this trial is with HIV subjects, it doesn't hurt at all by adding leronlimab because it will only serve to help out the ART drug involved. So, the trial may even show improvement in control of HIV when leronlimab is added.
But for the purpose of immune activation and inflammation, its not necessary to measure CD4 and CD8.
Unless levels of CD4 and CD8 directly inversely correlate with levels of inflammation and levels of immune activation.
if you were to take a guess as to what biomarkers will be the ones selected, what would you come up with?
I was thinking something like:
Biomarkers that increase as inflammation increases. A = (ENRAGE + RANTES + Tissue Inhibitor of MetalloProteinases + Interferon Gamma + IL-3 + IL-7 + IL-8 + IL-12 + IL-23)
Biomarkers that increase as proliferation increases. E = (MMP3 + MMP9 + VEGF + IL-2 + IL-4 + IL-5 + IL-10 + IL-13 + Platelet Derived Growth Factor (PDGF)+ Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF)+ Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGF Beta)+ Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF))
The equation could be something like:
A - XE = Inflammation Rate
If Inflammation Rate falls between (-10 to +10) then patient is an inactive, healthy individual between 18 and 65 years of age
If Inflammation Rate falls between (-10 to -25) then patient is an active, healthy patients that walks about a mile a day between ages 18 to 55
If Inflammation Rate < -25 then patient is an active, healthy athletic patients that does a minimum of 6 hours of strenuous exercise weekly with ages 18 to 45
Another scaling factor W (not X), would be used to obtain the InflammationRate of the HIV+ patients with chronic inflammation, but, their values would mostly land in the positive range, indicating a state of Inflammation, the more positive, the more inflammation, but as the trial progresses, their InflammationRate would progressively move more towards zero and possibly even move sharply into the negative region at times, when the rate of Proliferation could exceed the rate of Inflammation in the Balancing Act which takes place in the biomarker cascade in Chronic prolonged inflammation.
The X and W values would be averaged in the final equation.
I see it is alphabetized.
Great work.
do you think the new protocol will measure the level of viremia by measuring CD4 and CD8?
Certainly, given that this trial is with HIV subjects, it doesn't hurt at all by adding leronlimab because it will only serve to help out the ART drug involved. So, the trial may even show improvement in control of HIV when leronlimab is added.
But for the purpose of immune activation and inflammation, its not necessary to measure CD4 and CD8.
Unless levels of CD4 and CD8 directly inversely correlate with levels of inflammation and levels of immune activation.
if you were to take a guess as to what biomarkers will be the ones selected, what would you come up with?
I was thinking something like:
Biomarkers that increase as inflammation increases. A = (ENRAGE + RANTES + Tissue Inhibitor of MetalloProteinases + Interferon Gamma + IL-3 + IL-7 + IL-8 + IL-12 + IL-23)
Biomarkers that increase as proliferation increases. E = (MMP3 + MMP9 + VEGF + IL-2 + IL-4 + IL-5 + IL-10 + IL-13 + Platelet Derived Growth Factor (PDGF)+ Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF)+ Transforming Growth Factor Beta (TGF Beta)+ Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF))
The equation could be something like:
A - XE = Inflammation Rate
If Inflammation Rate falls between (-10 to +10) then patient is an inactive, healthy individual between 18 and 65 years of age
If Inflammation Rate falls between (-10 to -25) then patient is an active, healthy patients that walks about a mile a day between ages 18 to 55
If Inflammation Rate < -25 then patient is an active, healthy athletic patients that does a minimum of 6 hours of strenuous exercise weekly with ages 18 to 45
Another scaling factor W (not X), would be used to obtain the InflammationRate of the HIV+ patients with chronic inflammation, but, their values would mostly land in the positive range, indicating a state of Inflammation, the more positive, the more inflammation, but as the trial progresses, their InflammationRate would progressively move more towards zero and possibly even move sharply into the negative region at times, when the rate of Proliferation could exceed the rate of Inflammation in the Balancing Act which takes place in the biomarker cascade in Chronic prolonged inflammation.
The X and W values would be averaged in the final equation.
6
