A large prospective study assessing injection site reactions, quality of life and preference in patients using the Biojector<sup>®</sup> vs standard needles for enfuvirtide administration<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the severity of injection site reactions (ISRs), patient quality of life (QoL) and preference when enfuvirtide is administered by the Biojector (Bioject, Medical Technologies, Inc., Tualatin, OR, USA) relative to standard needles. METHODS: A total of 201 HIV-positive patients on stable enfuvirtide-based therapy (n=184) or initiating such therapy (n=17) were evaluated prospectively after switching from standard needles to the Biojector system. Patients used needles for a minimum of 2 weeks prior to switching to the Biojector. Questionnaires to assess the incidence and severity of ISRs (31-item score) and QoL [Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV)] were administered at baseline and following a minimum of 14 days of Biojector use. RESULTS: The median changes in ISR score and number of ISRs following a median of 1.0 month [interquartile range (IQR) 0.9, 1.3] of Biojector use were -3 (IQR -7, 1) and -1 (IQR -3, 1), respectively. The severity of pain (P<0.0001), induration (P<0.0001), pruritus (P<0.0001), nodules (P<0.0001) and erythema (P<0.0001) all decreased with the Biojector. Administration of enfuvirtide with the Biojector was associated with an improved patient QoL (P<0.0001), and was preferred by 72% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with needles, the Biojector was associated with a decreased severity of ISRs and improved QoL in patients taking enfuvirtide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".