MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003655730 · doi:10.1310/b6t0-n98j-1j3m-eqpk

Case series assessing the safety of mycophenolate as part of multidrug rescue treatment regimens

2002· article· en· W2003655730 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Press, Gil Kimel, Marianne Harris, Benita Yip, Kevin J.P. Craib, Julio Montaner

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Clinical Trials · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsAIDS VancouverSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectAbacavirMycophenolateInternal medicineSalvage therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PharmacologyViral loadImmunologyAntiretroviral therapyChemotherapyTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an inhibitor of lymphocyte proliferation, is emerging as a potential adjunct in the treatment of HIV-1 infection. By potentiating the activity of abacavir, MMF may improve antiviral efficacy. However, it may also lead to myelosuppression, such as was seen in patients taking hydroxyurea-containing regimens. PURPOSE: To assess the safety of MMF as adjunctive therapy for HIV infection. METHOD: Eighteen HIV-positive outpatients, given MMF (500 mg po bid) on a compassionate basis as part of their salvage therapy, were monitored for adverse effects. RESULTS: Five patients discontinued MMF between 26-68 days of follow-up due to adverse effects likely related to other factors. Among the remaining 13 patients, no new clinically significant cytopenias occurred over 107-154 days of follow-up. Three patients exhibited decreases in CD4 counts, despite decreases in plasma HIV-1 RNA. CONCLUSION: Short-term follow-up suggests that MMF (500 mg po bid) does not cause lymphocyte suppression. However, further studies are ongoing to determine its safety and efficacy profile in HIV infection.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV Clinical TrialsSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207