Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy and Acceptability of Planned Treatment Interruptions in HIV-Infected Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been no paediatric randomised trials describing the effect of planned treatment interruptions (PTIs) of antiretroviral therapy (ART) on adherence, or evaluating acceptability of such a strategy. In PENTA 11, HIV-infected children were randomised to CD4-guided PTIs (n = 53) or continuous therapy (CT, n = 56). Carers, and children if appropriate, completed questionnaires on adherence to ART and acceptability of PTIs. There was no difference in reported adherence on ART between CT and PTI groups; non-adherence (reporting missed doses over the last 3 days or marking <100 % adherence since the last clinical visit on a visual analogue scale) was 18 % (20/111) and 14 % (12/83) on carer questionnaires in the CT and PTI groups respectively (odds ratios, OR (95 % CI) = 1.04 (0.20, 5.41), χ(2) (1) = 0.003, p = 0.96). Carers in Europe/USA reported non-adherence more often (31/121, 26 %) than in Thailand (1/73, 1 %; OR (95 % CI) = 54.65 (3.68, 810.55), χ(2) (1) = 8.45, p = 0.004). The majority of families indicated they were happy to have further PTIs (carer: 23/36, 64 %; children: 8/13, 62 %), however many reported more clinic visits during PTI were a problem (carer: 15/36, 42 %; children: 6/12, 50 %).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".