Value of Long-Term Administration of Acyclovir and Similar Agents for Protecting Against AIDS-Related Lymphoma: Case-Control and Historical Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acyclovir or similar agents with activity against Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) theoretically may prevent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in AIDS. A case-control study of 29 patients with AIDS-related NHL and 58 matched control subjects assessed the frequency with which daily acyclovir (>/=800 mg/d) or similar agents were used for > or =1 year. In a historical cohort of 304 patients with AIDS for > or =2 years, the prevalence of NHL was assessed among 3 groups of patients: those who received long-term treatment with high-dose acyclovir (or similar agents) or low-dose or intermittent acyclovir; those treated with ganciclovir/foscarnet for <1 year; and those who had not previously been treated with acyclovir, ganciclovir, or foscarnet. In the case-control study, 22 patients (72.4%) with NHL never received acyclovir or similar drugs versus 19 control subjects (32.8%; P=. 002); 2 patients (6.9%) with NHL received acyclovir (> or =800 mg/d) for > or =1 year versus 27 (46.6%) of control subjects (P=.0001). In the cohort study, 6 (6.8%) of 88 patients who received acyclovir (> or =800 mg/d) for > or =1 year developed NHL versus 15 (15.5%) of 97 patients who received intermittent or lower-dose acyclovir and 30 (25.2%) of 119 patients who never received these agents (P=.002). Long-term administration (>1 year) of high-dose acyclovir or similar agents with anti-EBV activity may prevent NHL in patients with AIDS. A prospective, randomized study is warranted to confirm these results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".