MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054155415 · doi:10.1159/000321646

Renal Disease Associated with Antiretroviral Therapy in the Treatment of HIV

2011· review· en· W2054155415 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Cooper, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueNephron Clinical Practice · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationDiseaseIntensive care medicineRegimenKidney diseaseAntiretroviral therapyHealth carePublic healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PediatricsImmunologyInternal medicinePathologyViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of potent combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the treatment of HIV infection has permitted reliable control of disease progression and has markedly improved survival among people with HIV. As a result, health care providers and patients have shifted clinical priorities; whereas once delaying opportunistic illness was a primary focus, increasing emphasis is now placed on preventative health, management of comorbid chronic disease and avoiding long-term toxicities of ART. Although renal disease is common in people with HIV, renal disease specifically due to ART remains relatively rare. Still, as the use of ART continues to increase, health care providers are likely to encounter this potentially serious complication with increasing frequency. Distinguishing ART-related nephrotoxicity from the myriad of other potential causes of renal disease in people with HIV is important in order to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of an appropriate ART regimen. This review focuses on the early recognition of renal disease associated with ART and suggests strategies for management and prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephron Clinical PracticeSame topicHIV-related health complications and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207