<i>Tripterygium wilfordii</i>Hook F extract in cART-treated HIV patients with poor immune response: a pilot study to assess its immunomodulatory effects and safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), 20% of HIV-infected patients are unable to achieve adequate immunologic recovery, in which immune activation plays a crucial role. We hypothesize that extract of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a Chinese medication used to treat autoimmune diseases, has immunomodulatory effects that may help CD4 cell recovery. METHODS: Eighteen cART-treated HIV-infected patients virally suppressed for over 12 months with suboptimal CD4 cell recovery were enrolled. TwHF extract was administered at a dosage of 10 mg three times daily for 12 months. T-cell subsets and activation markers were evaluated at baseline and during follow-up. The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02002286). RESULTS: TwHF extract was associated with a mean increase in CD4 cell count of 88 cells/μl (95% confidential interval [CI], 72-105 cells/μl) after one year of treatment. A significant increase in the mean rate of CD4 cell recovery (26 before vs 75 cells/μl/year after TwHF use, P < 0.001) was observed. Analysis of 13 patients with activation profiles suggested that TwHF extract was associated with a decrease in T-cell immune activation which was temporally correlated with CD4 cell recovery. No discontinuation of TwHF extract was reported. CONCLUSION: Use of TwHF extract in HIV-infected patients was associated with a reduction in T-cell activation and improved CD4 recovery with an excellent safety profile.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".