MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Once‐daily nevirapine dosing: a pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety review

2007· review· en· W1984745693 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingNevirapineMedicineRashPharmacokineticsContext (archaeology)PharmacologyToxicityIntensive care medicineInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapyViral loadImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of attempts to simplify treatment regimens and enhance adherence, there is great interest in once-daily dosing regimens for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Nevirapine has a long half-life and achieves high steady-state plasma concentrations relative to the concentration required to inhibit 50% viral replication in vitro (IC(50)) in patients. For this reason, it has been considered as a once-daily antiretroviral. Pharmacokinetic and efficacy data support the use of this dosing approach, but excess rash and lingering concerns over liver toxicity preclude use of once-daily dosed nevirapine at this time. Tolerance to high nevirapine concentrations may develop when dose escalation is used during initiation of therapy. It is theoretically possible that the benefits of once-daily dosing may be achieved without excess toxicity by switching to once-daily nevirapine following several months of twice-daily administration. This dosing strategy is currently under evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.323 · 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