Minimal interference: A basis for selecting ART for prevention with positives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given international interest in "treatment as prevention" (TasP) and the pertinence of optimizing antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens for TasP, 19 French HIV experts were interviewed on their criteria for ART if used specifically for prevention with HIV-positive persons. Through content analysis of the interview material, nine criteria were identified. The most endorsed criteria, collectively, suggest a choice of treatment based on "minimal interference" where negative impacts of ART are minimized and ease of treatment integration maximized in the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) for both the short and long term. These criteria were the tolerance, side effects, and/or toxicity profile of ART, simplicity (e.g., of treatment schedule, dosage form) and the individualization of treatment (e.g., adapted to lifestyle). While virologic efficacy (i.e., a durable, undetectable viral load) was also deemed important, several experts specified that it was virtually assured with current treatments. To a much lesser extent, experts endorsed diffusion of ART into the genital compartments, a strong genetic barrier (against resistance), validated treatments (as opposed to new classes of ART), a rapid reduction in HIV viral load, and treatment cost. Pharmacologically, minimal interference calls for further improvements in the tolerance, side effects and toxicity profile of ART and in the simplicity of ART administration. Clinically, it means avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to ART in TasP and engagement with and of PLHIV in ART selection and side effects management. Strategically, it emphasises keeping the health and quality of life of PLHIV at the forefront of a TasP-oriented public health intervention.
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 | 0.041 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".