MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021877795 · doi:10.1086/375597

Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Testing in Adults Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1: 2003 Recommendations of an International AIDS Society–USA Panel

2003· article· en· W2021877795 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Hirsch, Françoise Brun‐Vézinet, Bonaventura Clotet, Brian Conway, Daniel R. Kuritzkes, Richard T. D’Aquila, Lisa M. Demeter, Scott M. Hammer, Victoria A. Johnson, Clive Loveday, John W. Mellors, Donna M. Jacobsen, Douglas D. Richman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationInternational AIDS Society
KeywordsMedicineDrug resistanceHIV drug resistanceAntiretroviral drugHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Intensive care medicineImmunologyAntiretroviral therapyVirologyFamily medicineViral loadBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New information about the benefits and limitations of testing for resistance to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) drugs has emerged. The International AIDS Society-USA convened a panel of physicians and scientists with expertise in antiretroviral drug management, HIV-1 drug resistance, and patient care to provide updated recommendations for HIV-1 resistance testing. Published data and presentations at scientific conferences, as well as strength of the evidence, were considered. Properly used resistance testing can improve virological outcome among HIV-infected individuals. Resistance testing is recommended in cases of acute or recent HIV infection, for certain patients who have been infected as long as 2 years or more prior to initiating therapy, in cases of antiretroviral failure, and during pregnancy. Limitations of resistance testing remain, and more study is needed to refine optimal use and interpretation.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations516
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207