MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986998055 · doi:10.1097/coh.0b013e3283136c9b

Combining protease inhibitors with new drug classes in treatment-experienced patients

2008· article· en· W1986998055 on OpenAlexafffund
Sharon Walmsley

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsRegimenIntensive care medicineMedicineDrugDrug resistanceProteaseProtease inhibitor (pharmacology)Drug classPopulationBioinformaticsPharmacologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antiretroviral therapyImmunologySurgeryViral loadBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The availability of new drugs in existing classes and new drugs in new classes has enabled better management of the treatment-experienced patient. This review will highlight the advances in the field and the new goals of therapy for this patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: The treatment-experienced patient on a failing regimen should receive a new combination of at least two, and ideally three, new agents that includes a drug within a new class. The goal of therapy is suppression of viral replication to less than 50 copies/ml. The new protease inhibitors with activity against strains with resistance to earlier members of the class are an important backbone to the new therapy given their high barrier to resistance. SUMMARY: The treatment-experienced patient can now be successfully managed with new agents and new classes of antiviral agents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207