Background morbidity in HIV vaccine trial participants from various geographic regions as assessed by unsolicited adverse events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, more clinical trials are being conducted in Africa and Asia, therefore, background morbidity in the respective populations is of interest. Between 2000 and 2007, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative sponsored 19 Phase 1 or 2A preventive HIV vaccine trials in the US, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa and India, enrolling 900 healthy HIV-1 uninfected volunteers. OBJECTIVE: To assess background morbidity as reflected by unsolicited adverse events (AEs), unrelated to study vaccine, reported in clinical trials from four continents. METHODS: All but three clinical trials were double-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled. Study procedures and data collection methods were standardized. The frequency and severity of AEs reported during the first year of the trials were analyzed. To avoid confounding by vaccine-related events, solicited reactogenicity and other AEs occurring within 28 d after any vaccination were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 2134 AEs were reported by 76% of all participants; 73% of all events were mild. The rate of AEs did not differ between placebo and vaccine recipients. Overall, the percentage of participants with any AE was higher in Africa (83%) compared with Europe (71%), US (74%) and India (65%), while the percentage of participants with AEs of moderate or greater severity was similar in all regions except India. In all regions, the most frequently reported AEs were infectious diseases, followed by gastrointestinal disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some regional differences, in these healthy participants selected for low risk of HIV infection, background morbidity posed no obstacle to clinical trial conduct and interpretation. Data from controlled clinical trials of preventive interventions can offer valuable insights into the health of the eligible population.
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 | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".