Is there a baseline CD4 cell count that precludes a survival response to modern antiretroviral therapy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Therapeutic guidelines advise that 200-350 x 106 cells/l may approximate an irreversible threshold beyond which response to therapy is compromised. We evaluated whether non-immune-based factors such as physician experience and adherence could affect survival among HIV-infected adults starting HAART. METHODS: Analysis of 1416 antiretroviral naive patients who initiated triple therapy between 1 August 1996 and 31 July 2000, and were followed until 31 July 2001. Patients whose physicians had previously enrolled six or more patients were defined as having an experienced physician. Patients who received medications for at least 75% of the time during the first year of HAART were defined as adherent. Cumulative mortality rates and adjusted relative hazards were determined for various CD4 cell count strata. RESULTS: Among patients with < 50 x 106 cells/l the adjusted relative hazard of mortality was 5.07 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.50-10.26] for patients of experienced physicians and was 11.99 (95% CI, 6.33-22.74) among patients with inexperienced physicians, in comparison to patients with > or = 200 x 106 cells/l treated by experienced physicians. Similarly, among patients with < 50 x 106 cells/l, the adjusted relative hazard of mortality was 6.19 (95% CI, 3.03-12.65) for adherent patients and was 35.71 (95% CI, 16.17-78.85) for non-adherent patients, in comparison to adherent patients with > or = 200 x 106 cells/l. CONCLUSION: Survival rates following the initiation of HAART are dramatically improved among patients starting with CD4 counts < 200 x 106 cells/l once adjusted for conservative estimates of physician experience and adherence. Our results indicate that the current emphasis of therapeutic guidelines on initiating therapy at CD4 cell counts above 200 x 106 cells/l should be re-examined.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".