Durability of Response to Treatment among Antiretroviral‐Experienced Subjects: 48‐Week Results from AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 359
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 24-week extension of AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 359, a study of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected, indinavir-experienced patients, was designed to study the durability of “salvage” treatment regimens. Patients received saquinavir in combination with either ritonavir or nelfinavir and, in addition, delavirdine, adefovir, or both. Patients who demonstrated a virologic response at weeks 12–16 were eligible to continue therapy in the extension through week 48. Of the 105 eligible subjects who were enrolled in the extension, 86 (82%) completed 48 weeks, and 49 (57%) of those 86 had HIV RNA levels ⩽500 copies/mL at week 48. For these 86 subjects who completed 48 weeks, the median change in CD4 cell count from baseline was +72 cells/mm3. Greater body weight, higher CD4 cell count, and greater degree of phenotypic susceptibility to indinavir and saquinavir at baseline were significantly associated with durable virologic suppression. These results show that some patients who experience treatment failure can demonstrate durable virologic and immunologic responses with salvage antiretroviral regimens
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 | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
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".