Survival Outcomes and Effect of Early vs. Deferred cART Among HIV-Infected Patients Diagnosed at the Time of an AIDS-Defining Event: A Cohort Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We analyzed clinical progression among persons diagnosed with HIV at the time of an AIDS-defining event, and assessed the impact on outcome of timing of combined antiretroviral treatment (cART). METHODS: Retrospective, European and Canadian multicohort study.. Patients were diagnosed with HIV from 1997-2004 and had clinical AIDS from 30 days before to 14 days after diagnosis. Clinical progression (new AIDS event, death) was described using Kaplan-Meier analysis stratifying by type of AIDS event. Factors associated with progression were identified with multivariable Cox regression. Progression rates were compared between those starting early (<30 days after AIDS event) or deferred (30-270 days after AIDS event) cART. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) CD4 count and viral load (VL) at diagnosis of the 584 patients were 42 (16, 119) cells/µL and 5.2 (4.5, 5.7) log(10) copies/mL. Clinical progression was observed in 165 (28.3%) patients. Older age, a higher VL at diagnosis, and a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) (vs. other AIDS events) were independently associated with disease progression. Of 366 patients with an opportunistic infection, 178 (48.6%) received early cART. There was no significant difference in clinical progression between those initiating cART early and those deferring treatment (adjusted hazard ratio 1.32 [95% confidence interval 0.87, 2.00], p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients and patients with high VL or NHL at diagnosis had a worse outcome. Our data suggest that earlier initiation of cART may be beneficial among HIV-infected patients diagnosed with clinical AIDS in our setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".