Gemini: A Noninferiority Study of Saquinavir/Ritonavir Versus Lopinavir/Ritonavir as Initial HIV-1 Therapy in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: : Direct comparison of the efficacy and safety of different agents is needed to guide selection of optimal treatment regimens for therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: : Gemini was a 48-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults randomized to either saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/r) 1000 mg/100 mg twice a day or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400 mg/100 mg twice a day, each with emtricitabine/tenofovir 200 mg/300 mg every day. RESULTS: : A similar proportion of participants in the SQV/r (n = 167) and LPV/r (n = 170) arms had HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies per milliliter at week 48: 64.7% vs 63.5% and estimated difference in proportion for noninferiority: 1.14%, 96% confidence interval: -9.6 to11.9 (P < 0.012), confirming that SQV/r was noninferior to LPV/r treatment. There were no significant differences in week 48 CD4 counts between arms. The rate and severity of adverse events were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in the median change from baseline between arms in plasma lipids except for triglyceride levels, which were significantly higher in the LPV/r at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: : In treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients, SQV/r treatment was noninferior in virologic suppression at 48 weeks to LPV/r treatment and offered a better triglyceride 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
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".