Discrepant results in the interpretation of HIV‐1 drug‐resistance genotypic data among widely used algorithms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the concordance on the interpretation of HIV-1 drug-resistance genotypic data by three widely used algorithms: Stanford University Database (SU), TruGene (Visible Genetics, Canada) (VG) and VirtualPhenotype (Virco, Belgium) (VP). METHODS: Genotypic data from 293 HIV-1-infected individuals with treatment failure was interpreted for 14 antiretroviral drugs by the three algorithms. RESULTS: Complete concordant results among the three systems for all the drugs studied were found in 40/293 (13.7%) samples. Low concordance in the interpretation was observed for most nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), while results agreed highly for all nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and most protease inhibitors (PIs). In pair-wise comparisons, discordant interpretations between SU and VP were found in over 50% of the samples for didanosine, zalcitabine, stavudine and abacavir, and the level of disagreement between VG and VP exceeded 40% for the same drugs. Major discrepancies (high-level resistance interpretation by one algorithm with sensitive interpretation by another) were observed between VG and VP in over 10% of the cases for didanosine, zalcitabine, stavudine and abacavir. On the other hand, the three algorithms had concordant results for lamivudine in over 90% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the great level of discordance in the interpretation of genotyping results among algorithms, clearly showing the necessity for clinical validation. Moreover, these results suggest that a joint effort from the scientific community as well as national and international HIV societies is needed to achieve a consensus for the interpretation of genotypic data.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it