MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115713173 · doi:10.1586/14789072.2.5.671

Efavirenz for HIV-1 infection in adults: an overview

2004· review· en· W2115713173 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Fortin, Véronique Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anti-infective Therapy · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEfavirenzHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyMedicineAntiretroviral therapyViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efavirenz (Sustiva), Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has been used successfully since the late 1990s to treat HIV-1 infection, and has since become a cornerstone of antiretroviral therapy. The efficacy and potency of efavirenz has been established in many clinical trials and cohort studies, where it has been compared with unboosted or ritonavir (Norvir, Abbott Laboratories Ltd)-boosted protease inhibitors, nevirapine (Viramune, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd); and three nucleoside analog-based regimens. Pharmacokinetics allowing for a convenient once-daily administration make efavirenz one of the first agents to be included in once-daily regimens. Tolerability of efavirenz is satisfactory, although CNS-related toxicity can occur, and is still poorly understood. New insights into the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz could help to manage this unwanted toxicity. This drug profile will examine the principal data concerning the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety that have made efavirenz a standard of care in HIV-1 therapy, and will comment on new data that could change the way efavirenz is used in the near future.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anti-infective TherapySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207