Which method of adherence measurement is most suitable for daily use to predict virological failure among immigrant and non-immigrant HIV-1 infected patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In industrialized countries, virological failure occurs more often among HIV-infected immigrant patients. Non-adherence is the most credible explanation. We compared adherence of immigrant patients with that of non-immigrant patients in the Netherlands, and investigated which method of adherence measurement is most suitable for daily use to predict virological treatment failure: testing knowledge of the current regimen, a quantitative adherence interview, pharmacy prescription refill ratio (dispensed medication divided by prescribed medication, DM/PM), and plasma drug levels. Included were 61 immigrants and 81 non-immigrants. Virological failure did occur more often in immigrants than in non-immigrants (19.7% (12/61) versus 8.6% (7/81), p=0.056), especially among previously naive patients (19.6% (11/56) versus 0% (0/54), p<0.01). There were no differences between both groups on any of the four adherence measures. Virological failure was associated with reporting stopping medication when not feeling well (OR=12, 95%CI=1.9-77.7, p=0.02), and, among naive patients, also with a DM/PM < 0.85 (Odds Ratio=5.1, 95%Confidence Interval=1.2-22.3, p=0.03). Although our study confirmed a much higher virological failure rate among immigrants, we were unable to identify clear differences in adherence between immigrants and non-immigrant patient, although virological failure was associated with stopping medication when not feeling well and a low DM/PM. Unstructured treatment interruptions are a likely explanation of the findings. Interventions should be aimed at preventing patients to stop medication. A DM/PM below 0.85 can be indicative for patients who did stop medication and are at risk for virological failure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".