Immunologic Effectiveness of Maraviroc- and Raltegravir-Containing Regimens (R+M+) versus Raltegravir-Based Regimens That Do Not Include Maraviroc (R+M−)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunologic effectiveness of raltegravir-maraviroc (R+M+)-based regimens with raltegravir-based regimens that do not include maraviroc (R+M-) in treatment-experienced patients in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of treatment-experienced HIV-infected adults receiving either R+M+- or R+M--based therapy. Longitudinal CD4 counts were analyzed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients were included in the analysis, of whom 32 were receiving R+M+ and 124 R+M-. Mean baseline CD4 counts in patients on R+M+ and R+M- were 463.8 and 442.3 cells/mm(3), respectively (P = .67). In multivariable mixed models, a baseline viral load ≥50 copies/mL was significantly associated with CD4 change during follow-up (P < .0001). No difference between R+M+ and R+M- was observed during follow-up (P = .81). CONCLUSION: CD4 cell recovery was similar among patients receiving either R+M+- or R+M--based therapy during a 24-month period of follow-up.
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) | 0.000 | 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".