Clinical Evaluation of the Potential Utility of Computational Modeling as an HIV Treatment Selection Tool by Physicians with Considerable HIV Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI), which comprises a small research team in the United Kingdom and collaborating clinical centers in more than 15 countries, has used antiretroviral treatment and response data from thousands of patients around the world to develop computational models that are highly predictive of virologic response. The potential utility of such models as a tool for assisting treatment selection was assessed in two clinical pilot studies: a prospective study in Canada and Italy, which was terminated early because of the availability of new drugs not covered by the system, and a retrospective study in the United States. For these studies, a Web-based user interface was constructed to provide access to the models. Participating physicians entered baseline data for cases of treatment failure and then registered their treatment intention. They then received a report listing the five alternative regimens that the models predicted would be most effective plus their own selection, ranked in order of predicted virologic response. The physicians then entered their final treatment decision. Twenty-three physicians entered 114 cases (75 unique cases with 39 entered twice by different physicians). Overall, 33% of treatment decisions were changed following review of the report. The final treatment decisions and the best of the RDI alternatives were predicted to produce greater virologic responses and involve fewer drugs than the original selections. Most physicians found the system easy to use and understand. All but one indicated they would use the system if it were available, particularly for highly treatment-experienced cases with challenging resistance profiles. Despite limitations, the first clinical evaluation of this approach by physicians with substantial HIV-experience suggests that it has the potential to deliver clinical and economic benefits.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".