Lack of Effectiveness of Cellulose Sulfate Gel for the Prevention of Vaginal HIV Transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women make up more than 50% of adults living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, female-initiated HIV prevention methods are urgently needed. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cellulose sulfate, an HIV-entry inhibitor formulated as a vaginal gel, involving women at high risk for HIV infection at three African and two Indian sites. The primary end point was newly acquired infection with HIV type 1 or 2. The secondary end point was newly acquired gonococcal or chlamydial infection. The primary analysis was based on a log-rank test of no difference in the distribution of time to HIV infection, stratified according to site. RESULTS: A total of 1398 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive cellulose sulfate gel (706 participants) or placebo (692 participants) and had follow-up HIV test data. There were 41 newly acquired HIV infections, 25 in the cellulose sulfate group and 16 in the placebo group, with an estimated hazard ratio of infection for the cellulose sulfate group of 1.61 (P=0.13). This result, which is not significant, is in contrast to the interim finding that led to the trial being stopped prematurely (hazard ratio, 2.02 [corrected]; P=0.05 [corrected]) and the suggestive result of a preplanned secondary (adherence-based) analysis (hazard ratio, 2.02; P=0.05). No significant effect of cellulose sulfate as compared with placebo was found on the risk of gonorrheal infection (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.62) or chlamydial infection (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Cellulose sulfate did not prevent HIV infection and may have increased the risk of HIV acquisition. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153777; and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN95638385.)
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".