Predicting HIV Coreceptor Usage on the Basis of Genetic and Clinical Covariates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared several statistical learning methods for the prediction of HIV coreceptor use from clonal HIV third hypervariable (V3) loop sequences, and evaluated and improved their effectiveness on clinical samples. METHODS: Support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks, position-specific scoring matrices (PSSM) and mixtures of localized rules were estimated and tested using 10x ten-fold cross-validation on a clonal dataset consisting of 1,100 matched clonal genotype-phenotype pairs from 332 patients. Different SVMs were also trained and tested on a clinically derived dataset, representing 920 patient samples from British Columbia, Canada. Methods were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: In the clonal analysis, the sensitivity of the 11/25 rule at 92.5% specificity was 59.5%. PSSMs and SVMs increased sensitivity to 71.9% and 76.4%, respectively, at the same specificity (P < < 0.05). In clinical samples, the sensitivity of the 11/25 rule and SVM decreased to 25.9% (specificity 93.9%) and 39.8% (specificity 93.5%), respectively. However, the integration of clinical data resulted in a further 2.4-fold increase in sensitivity over the 11/25 rule (63%). Univariate analyses identified 41 V3 mutations significantly associated with coreceptor usage. CONCLUSION: For all methods tested, a substantial sensitivity decrease is observed on clinical data, probably owing to the heterogeneity of the viral population in vivo. In response to these complications, we present an SVM-based approach that integrates sequence information with clinical and host data, resulting in improved performance and sensitivity compared with purely sequence-based approaches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".