Local phylogenetic analysis identifies distinct trends in transmitted HIV drug resistance: implications for public health interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV transmitted drug resistance (TDR) surveillance is usually conducted by sampling from a large population. However, overall TDR prevalence results may be inaccurate for many individual clinical setting. We analyzed HIV genotypes at a tertiary care setting in Ottawa, Ontario in order to evaluate local TDR patterns among sub-populations. METHOD: Genotyping reports were digitized from ART naïve patients followed at the Immunodeficiency Clinic at the Ottawa Hospital, between 2008 and 2010. Quality controlled, digitized sequence data were assessed for TDR using the Stanford HIV Database. Patient characteristics were analyzed according to TDR patterns. Finally, a phylogenetic tree was constructed to elucidate the observed pattern of HIV TDR. RESULTS: Among the 155 clinic patients there was no statistically significantly difference in demographics as compared to the Ontario provincial HIV population. The clinic prevalence of TDR was 12.3%; however, in contrast to the data from Ontario, TDR patterns were inverted with a 21% prevalence among MSM and 5.5% among IDU. Furthermore, nearly 80% of the observed TDR was a D67N/K219Q pattern with 87% of these infections arising from a distinct phylogenetic cluster. CONCLUSIONS: Local patterns of TDR were distinct to what had been observed provincially. Phylogenetic analysis uncovered a cluster of related infections among MSM that appeared more likely to be recent infections. Results support a paradigm of routine local TDR surveillance to identify the sub-populations under care. Furthermore, the routine application of phylogenetic analysis in the TDR surveillance context provides insights into how best to target prevention strategies; and how to correctly measure outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".