MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Grade 4 Events Are as Important as AIDS Events in the Era of HAART

2003· article· en· W2040455320 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald B. Reisler, Cong Han, William J. Burman, Ellen Tedaldi, James D. Neaton

Bibliographic record

VenueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsBurman University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVirologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate incidence and predictors of serious or life-threatening events that are not AIDS defining, AIDS events, and death among patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the setting of 5 large multicenter randomized treatment trials conducted in the United States. METHODS: Data were analyzed from 2,947 patients enrolled from December 1996 through December 2001. All patients were to receive antiretrovirals throughout follow-up. Data collection was uniform for all main outcome measures: serious or life-threatening (grade 4) events, AIDS, and death. RESULTS: During follow-up, 675 patients experienced a grade 4 event (11.4 per 100 person-years); 332 developed an AIDS event (5.6 per 100 person-years); and 272 died (4.6 per 100 person-years). The most common grade 4 events were liver related (148 patients, 2.6 per 100 person-years). Cardiovascular events were associated with the greatest risk of death (hazard ratio = 8.64; 95% CI: 5.1 to 14.5). The first grade 4 event and the first AIDS event were associated with similar risks of death, 5.68 and 6.95, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Grade 4 events are as important as AIDS events in the era of HAART. To adequately evaluate the impact of HAART on morbidity, comorbidities and other key factors must be carefully assessed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations132
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesSame topicHIV-related health complications and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207