CD4 changes among virologically suppressed patients on antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is assessed by measuring CD4 cell counts and viral load. Recent studies have questioned the added value of routine CD4 cell count measures in patients who are virologically suppressed. METHODS: We systematically searched three databases and two conference sites up to 31 October 2014 for studies reporting CD4 changes among patients who were on ART and virologically suppressed. No geographic, language or age restrictions were applied. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 12 published and 1 unpublished study reporting CD4 changes among 20,297 virologically suppressed patients. The pooled proportion of patients who experienced an unexplained, confirmed CD4 decline was 0.4% (95% CI 0.2-0.6%). Results were not influenced by duration of follow-up, age, study design or region of economic development. No studies described clinical adverse events among virologically suppressed patients who experienced CD4 declines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review support reducing or stopping routine CD4 monitoring for patients who are immunologically stable on ART in settings where routine viral load monitoring is provided.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".