MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1972210762 · doi:10.1093/cid/cis1036

Reply to Mandorfer et al

2012· letter· fr· W1972210762 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Hull, K. Rollet, Marina B. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2012
Typeletter
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaAIDS Vancouver
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their letter, Mandorfer et al [1] provide additional data to support the hypothesis that discordance between absolute CD4 count and CD4 percentage is associated with underlying liver disease and associated portal hypertension. This hypothesis was initially advanced by McGovern et al [2] in a cross-sectional analysis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–negative individuals with cirrhosis, in which the majority of individuals had low absolute CD4 cell count values but had CD4 percentages that remained in the normal range. In our analysis of a cohort of 908 HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV)–coinfected patients [3], 31% of the population was found to have evidence of discordance with higher CD4 percentages than would normally be found to correlate with the documented absolute CD4 cell count. Additionally, in multivariate analysis, factors associated with very high discordance at baseline included history of end-stage liver disease (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 6.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.27–18.67) and aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index score >1.5 (AOR, 4.69; 95% CI, 1.64–13.35). Similarly, in a cross-sectional analysis of 287 HIV-infected individuals with underlying hepatic fibrosis (93.7% HCV coinfected) in the Johns Hopkins ALIVE cohort, 34.4% were found to have discordant CD4 percentage/absolute CD4 cell count [4]. In multivariate analysis, and using transient elastography to further classify degree of fibrosis, the odds of having high CD4 discordance was increased in those with significant liver fibrosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, .95–2.96). This relationship was more pronounced when overall lymphopenia was observed [4]. In this analysis of a cohort of 97 coinfected patients in whom hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) had been determined, Mandorfer and colleagues found that 18% of individuals could be classified as having high discordance using the criteria we proposed. A nonsignificant association of high discordance in those with higher HPGV scores was observed; however, portal pressure was modestly correlated with the absolute CD4 cell count/CD4 cell percentage ratio (r = −0.201, P = .049) [1]. One potential mechanism thought to account for the discordance between CD4 percentage and absolute CD4 cell count is the splenic sequestration of lymphocytes due to consequences of end-stage liver disease and resultant portal hypertension [2, 5]. The data presented here do support this hypothesis, linking measured portal pressures to presence of discordance. Other potential mechanisms may also need to be considered, as the data from Claassen et al did not demonstrate greater discordance in those with cirrhosis versus Metavir F2 or higher stages of fibrosis [4] and the correlation observed in with higher HPGV scores was relatively weak. For example, level of HCV viral replication itself and increased hepatic inflammation have been associated with naive CD4 T-cell lymphopenia, possibly due to chronic immune activation [6]. Clinicians should consider evaluating patients with high discordance for underlying cirrhosis, based on cumulative data that support this relationship. However, it is unclear whether the CD4 percentage would serve to better determine risk for opportunistic infections in these patients; retrospective data from the Italian IcONA cohort would suggest the absolute CD4 count remains the more important variable [7]. Prospective evaluation of the prognostic value of CD4 percentage in those with underlying cirrhosis may be necessary. In addition, evaluating the effects of HCV therapy–related regression of fibrosis on the relationship between absolute CD4 cell count and CD4 percentage may also serve to confirm the underlying mechanisms of discordance. Acknowledgments. The Canadian Co-infection cohort investigators (CTN222): Drs Jeff Cohen, Windsor Regional Hospital Metropolitan Campus, Windsor, ON; Brian Conway, Downtown IDC, Vancouver, BC; Pierre Côté, Clinique du Quartier Latin, Montreal, QC; Joseph Mark Tyndall, Native Health Centre, Vancouver, BC; Shariq Haider, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON; Marianne Harris, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC; David Hasse, Capital District Health Authority, Halifax, NS; Julio Montaner, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC; Erica Moodie, McGill University, Montreal, QC; Neora Pick, Oak Tree Clinic, Vancouver, BC; Annita Rachlis, Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON; Roger Sandre, HAVEN Program, Sudbury, ON; Danielle Rouleau, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC; David Wong University Health Network, Toronto, ON; and Sharon Walmsley, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON. Potential conflicts of interest. M. B. K. has received institutional grant support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Fonds de recherché en santé du Quebec, and the CIHR Canadian HIV Trials Network. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.1290.056
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious Diseases→Same topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments→French-language works237,207→