MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067571180 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3181aae814

OPHTHALMOPLEGIA AND PTOSIS: MITOCHONDRIAL TOXICITY IN PATIENTS RECEIVING HIV THERAPY

2009· article· en· W2067571180 on OpenAlexafffund
Gerald Pfeffer, Hélène C. F. Côté, Joan Montaner, C. C. Li, M. Jitratkosol, M Mezei

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsAIDS Vancouver
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMitochondrial toxicityChronic progressive external ophthalmoplegiaMitochondrial myopathyLactic acidosisMitochondrial diseaseMitochondrial DNALipodystrophyKearns–Sayre syndromeOphthalmoparesisMedicinePtosisMyopathyToxicityPathologyInternal medicineBiologyImmunologySurgeryGeneticsAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial toxicity (MT) can occur as a consequence of HIV infection and from treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).1 Toxicity is additive and manifested by signs including lipodystrophy and lactic acidosis. HIV and HAART are also reported in association with skeletal myopathy and mitochondrial abnormalities on muscle biopsy.2 This is in contrast to mitochondrial disorders associated with nuclear or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations, in which patients may present with syndromic constellations of dysfunction in metabolically active tissues such as the brain and skeletal muscles. Chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia (CPEO) is a mitochondrial syndrome with gradual onset of ptosis and ophthalmoparesis.3 Thus far, phenotypes resembling genetic mitochondrial disorders have not been reported in association with acquired mitochondrial toxicity from disease or drugs. We report 3 cases of HIV-infected patients with long exposure to HAART who developed clinical syndromes resembling CPEO. ### Case series. See the table for details. The patients were men, between the ages of 52 …

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207