MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070552896 · doi:10.7448/ias.15.6.18114

Computational models that predict response to HIV therapy can reduce virological failure and therapy costs in resource‐limited settings

2012· article· en· W2070552896 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Revell, D. Wang, Gerardo Alvarez‐Uria, Adrian Streinu‐Cercel, Luminiţa Ene, Amj Wensing, Raph L Hamers, Carl Morrow, Robin Wood, H. Tempelman, F. DeWolf, Mark Nelson, Julio Montaner, H. Clifford Lane, B. A. Larder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International AIDS Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsAIDS Vancouver
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRegimenViral loadAntiretroviral therapyReceiver operating characteristicPharmacotherapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Area under the curveInternal medicineIntensive care medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of genotypic HIV drug‐resistance testing are, typically, 60–65% predictive of response to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) and have proven valuable for guiding treatment changes. However, genotyping is not available in many resource‐limited settings (RLS). The purpose of this study was to develop computational models that can predict response to ART without a genotype and evaluate their potential as a treatment support tool in RLS. Random forest models were trained to predict the probability of response to ART (<400 copies HIV RNA/ml) using the following data from 14,891 cases of ART change following virological failure in well‐resourced countries: viral load and CD4 count prior to treatment change, treatment history, drugs in the new regimen, time to follow‐up and follow‐up viral load. The models were assessed during cross‐validation, with an independent set of 800 cases, with 231 cases from RLS in Southern Africa, 206 from India and 375 from Romania. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was the main outcome measure of the accuracy of the model's predictions. The models were used to identify alternative regimens for those cases where the salvage regimen initiated in the clinic failed. Finally, annual therapy costs were used to determine the potential cost effectiveness of this strategy for the Indian cases. The models achieved an AUC of 0.74–0.81 during cross validation and 0.76–0.77 with the 800 test TCEs. They achieved an AUC of 0.59–0.65 with cases from Southern Africa, 0.64 for India and 0.73 for Romania. The models identified alternative, locally available drug regimens that were predicted to result in virological response for 97% of cases where the salvage regimen failed in Southern Africa, 98% of those in Romania and 100% in India. Cost‐neutral or cost‐saving regimens that were predicted to be effective were identified for 88% of the Indian salvage failures with a mean saving of $638 per year. We developed computational models that predict virological response to ART without a genotype with comparable accuracy to genotyping with rules‐based interpretation. The models were able to identify alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the great majority of cases where the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. The models were also able to identify cost‐saving alternatives for most cases of failure in India. These models are now freely available over the internet as part of the HIV Treatment Response Predictions System (HIV‐TRePS), which has the potential to help optimise antiretroviral therapy in countries with limited resources where genotyping is not generally available.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International AIDS SocietySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207