Candidate HIV/AIDS vaccines: lessons learned from the World's first phase III efficacy trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003 the results of the first two efficacy trials of candidate HIV-1 vaccines will be available. The first the AIDSVAX B/B trial was started in 1998 in the USA Canada Puerto Rico and the Netherlands. The trial will conclude in late 2002 with initial efficacy results available in the first quarter of 2003. The second the AIDSVAX B/E trial was started in Bangkok Thailand in 1999 and will similarly have initial efficacy results available in late 2003. Each study is unique. The North American/European trial will determine the efficacy of AIDSVAX B/B a bivalent subtype B gp120 vaccine using MN and GNE8 antigens in preventing sexual transmission of HIV-1 in geographical areas where subtype B HIV is most prevalent. For this trial 5108 men who have sex with men (MSM) and 309 high-risk women have volunteered. The Thailand trial will determine the efficacy of AIDSVAX B/E a bivalent gp120 vaccine containing the MN and A244 envelope antigens from subtype B and subtype E viruses respectively against blood-borne infection (Fig. 1). This trial involves 2545 injecting drug users (IDU) mostly heroin addicts in Bangkok where both subtype B and subtype E HIV are prevalent. The road from initial pre-clinical and clinical results to phase III efficacy trials has been long and difficult. The purpose of this paper is to review the lessons that have been learned through the experience of conducting the first phase III HIV vaccine efficacy trials. (excerpt)
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".