Symptomatic and health status outcomes in the Canadian randomized MAC treatment trial (CTN010)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to compare the effect of 2 regimens for treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) bacteraemia in an HIV-positive population on symptoms and health status outcomes using a substudy of an open-label randomized controlled trial. The study was conducted in 24 hospital-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics in 16 Canadian cities. Patients had HIV infection and MAC bacteraemia and were given either rifampin 600 mg, ethambutol 15 mg/kg daily, clofazimine 100 mg daily and ciprofloxacin 750 mg twice daily (4-drug arm) or rifabutin 600 mg daily (amended to 300 mg daily in mid-trial), ethambutol 15 mg/kg daily and clarithromycin 1000 mg twice daily (3-drug arm). The primary health status outcome was the change on the 8-item symptom subscale of the Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-HIV Health Survey adapted for MAC. Changes on other MOS-HIV subscales and on the Karnofsky score were also evaluated. Patients on the 3-drug arm had better outcomes on the MOS-HIV symptom subscale at 16 weeks (P=0.06), with statistically significant differences restricted to night sweats and fever and chills (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients improving on the symptom subscale relative to baseline was 55% on the 3-drug arm and 40% on the 4-drug arm. Patients on the 3-drug arm also had better Karnofsky score at 16 weeks (P < 0.001) and better outcomes on the social function, mental health, energy/fatigue, health distress and cognitive function subscales of the MOS-HIV. The 3-drug arm is superior to the 4-drug arm in terms of impact on MAC-associated symptoms, functional status and other aspects of health status.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".