Susceptibilidad al virus herpes simple tipo 1: contribución de complejos genéticos polimórficos relacionados con la citotoxicidad celular

El virus Herpes simple tipo 1 (HSV-1) infecta a la mayoría de los individuos en edades tempranas, manteniéndose en estado latente en sus ganglios sensitivos durante toda la vida. La primoinfección requiere un contacto directo entre la piel o las mucosas dañadas de un individuo no infectado con viriones infectivos liberados en los fluidos corporales de un sujeto infectado. Esta infección primaria suele pasar desapercibida o causar sintomatología típica de una infección viral leve. Sin embargo, en casos excepcionales, puede ser la causa de enfermedades graves y potencialmente letales como la encefalitis herpética, el síndrome séptico por HSV-1, la infección congénita, el eczema herpeticum o la queratitis herpética (Abel et al, 2010; Chase et al, 1987; Frederick et al, 2002; Leung et al, 2013, Liesegang et al, 2001; Whitley et al, 1991). El paso del virus a través de las barreras anatómicas de un individuo no infectado es seguido por la replicación viral en el sitio de la inoculación. A continuación, los viriones entran en las fibras nerviosas sensitivas y son transportados hacía los cuerpos neuronales en los ganglios sensitivos, donde se mantienen en estado latente…

The interpretation of scholars' interpretations of confidence intervals: criticism, replication, and extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014)

Hoekstra et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21:1157–1164) surveyed the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) by first-year students, master students, and researchers with six items expressing misinterpretations of CIs. They asked respondents to answer all items, computed the number of items endorsed, and concluded that misinterpretation of CIs is robust across groups. Their design may have produced this outcome artifactually for reasons that we describe. This paper discusses first the two interpretations of CIs and, hence, why misinterpretation cannot be inferred from endorsement of some of the items. Next, a re-analysis of Hoekstra et al.’s data reveals some puzzling differences between first-year and master students that demand further investigation. For that purpose, we designed a replication study with an extended questionnaire including two additional items that express correct interpretations of CIs (to compare endorsement of correct vs. nominally incorrect interpretations) and we asked master students to indicate which items they would have omitted had they had the option (to distinguish deliberate from uninformed endorsement caused by the forced-response format). Results showed that incognizant first-year students endorsed correct and nominally incorrect items identically, revealing that the two item types are not differentially attractive superficially; in contrast, master students were distinctively more prone to endorsing correct items when their uninformed responses were removed, although they admitted to nescience more often that might have been expected. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.