MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969554945 · doi:10.1089/aid.2011.0097

The Prevalence of Drug Resistance Mutations Among Treatment-Naive HIV-Infected Individuals in Beijing, China

2011· article· en· W1969554945 on OpenAlexaff
Jingrong Ye, Hongyan Lu, Wei-shi Wang, Lei Guo, Ruolei Xin, Shuangqing Yu, Ting-chen Wu, Yi Zeng, Xiong He

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReverse transcriptaseVirologyDrug resistanceNucleoside Reverse Transcriptase InhibitorGenotypeDrug-naïveHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ProteaseMedicineProtease inhibitor (pharmacology)Reverse-transcriptase inhibitorBiologyDrugImmunologySidaViral diseaseViral loadPolymerase chain reactionAntiretroviral therapyGenePharmacologyEnzymeMicrobiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the prevalence of HIV-1 genotypic mutations for drug resistance among patients in Beijing, blood samples from 145 newly confirmed (2006-2007), treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals were analyzed. Seven subtypes or CRF were subsequently determined and scored by the Stanford HIV Drug Resistance algorithm: CRF01_AE HIV-1 (27.6%), subtype B' (24.1%), CRF07_BC (21.4%), subtype B (20.7%), CRF08_BC (3.4%), subtype C (2.1%), and CRF06_cpx (0.7%). Eleven of the 145 subjects studied were found to harbor the strains resistant to either protease inhibitors (PIs) (3.4%), or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (2.1%), or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) (3.4%). Although the prevalence of drug resistance was relatively low among the treatment-naive HIV-1 patients in Beijing in comparison to those in industrialized countries, we will continue monitoring newly infected subjects for any potential alteration of the prevalence pattern to ensure the success of the ongoing scale-up of antiretroviral treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Research and Human RetrovirusesSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207