MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111631169 · doi:10.1086/320191

The Relationships between Ethnicity, Sex, Risk Group, and Virus Load in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Antiretroviral‐Naive Patients

2001· article· en· W2111631169 on OpenAlexaff
Jacky Saul, Jo Erwin, Caroline Sabin, Ranjababu Kulasegaram, Barry Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViral loadVirusImmunologyMedicineEthnic groupUnivariate analysisLentivirusMultivariate analysisVirologyInternal medicineViral disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This cross-sectional study examined the relationships between ethnicity, sex, risk group, and virus load in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antiretroviral-naive patients. HIV-1 RNA levels were measured in 322 patients attending St. Thomas' Hospital between May 1997 and February 1999. By univariate analyses, only clinical status and CD4(+) cell count were related to virus load. In multivariate analysis, variables independently related to virus load were CD4(+) cell count (P=.001), being black African (P=.001), having a nonsexual risk for HIV infection (P=.03), and having AIDS (P=.05). Neither sex nor age was a significant predictor of initial virus load after adjusting for other variables. For a given CD4(+) cell count, black Africans and people who contracted HIV nonsexually presented with a virus load lower than that of patients in other groups. Because virus loads may need to be interpreted differently according to ethnicity, this may affect decisions on when to initiate antiretroviral therapy and how to interpret clinical trial 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207