Canadian Consensus Guidelines for the Optimal Use of Maraviroc in the Treatment of HIV‐Infected Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A Canadian group, consisting of six physicians and an HIV researcher with significant experience and knowledge in HIV management, reviewed the available data and developed guidelines for Canadian health care providers (who treat HIV infection) on the appropriate use of maraviroc (UK-427,857) in HIV-infected adults. METHODS: Evidence from the published literature and conference presentations, as well as the expert opinions of the group members were considered and evaluated to develop the recommendations. Feedback on the draft recommendations was obtained from this core group, as well as from four other physicians across Canada with expertise in HIV treatment and experience with the use of maraviroc. The final recommendations represent the core group's consensus agreement once all feedback was considered. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations were developed to guide physicians and other health care providers in the optimal use of maraviroc. The recommendations were considered in light of the fact that the decision to include maraviroc in an antiretroviral regimen depends not only on issues that concern all antiretroviral agents, such as efficacy, safety, resistance and drug interactions, but also on the issue of viral tropism, which is unique to maraviroc and other CCR5 inhibitors.
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 | 0.040 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".