Structured treatment interruptions in chronic HIV management: where next?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1999, researchers reported the ‘Berlin patient’, the first instance of successfully controlling HIV viremia after interruption of antiretroviral treatment (ART) [1]. This case report raised the possibility that intermittent ART might have a place in the management of HIV infection. Since then, structured treatment interruptions (STIs) as an experimental alternative strategy in the management of HIV infection have been investigated in a variety of settings [2]. STI is defined as an experimental strategy investigating effects of predetermined interruptions of ART for a variable or fixed duration in selected HIV-infected participants, guided by CD4 or HIV-RNA levels in controlled clinical trial settings. Fixed-cycle STIs refer to interruptions in therapy that are of a set duration (i.e., 1–3 months) cycled with reintroduction of therapy of similar duration’ [3]. CD4-guided STIs are strategies in which interruptions in ART are attempted at CD4 levels above 350 cells/ml with reintroduction of ART at variable levels of CD4 cell count (250–350 cells/ml). STIs in controlled trial settings have been attempted in three categories of HIV-infected patients:
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".