Incidence of morphological and lipid abnormalities: gender and treatment differentials after initiation of first antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide population-based incidence estimates for constituent symptoms of human immundeficiency virus (HIV)-related lipodystrophy syndrome and to identify possible independent predictors of accrued cases. DESIGN: Prospective population-based cohort. Methods Study subjects were antiretroviral-naïve individuals who initiated treatment between October 1998 and May 2001 and provided completed self-reported data regarding the occurrence of lipoatrophy, lipohypertrophy and increased triglyceride and cholesterol levels. Possible predictors of incident lipoatrophy, lipohypertrophy, dyslipidaemia and mixed lipodystrophy (symptoms of both lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy) were identified using logistic regression modelling. A sub-analysis restricted to subjects retaining original treatment at study completion was conducted using similar methods. RESULTS: Among the 366 study subjects, cumulative incidence was 29% for lipoatrophy, 23% for lipohypertrophy, 9% for dyslipidaemia, and 13% for mixed lipodystrophy after a median duration of 12 months of antiretroviral therapy. In an intentto-treat analysis incident lipoatrophy and lipohypertrophy were independently associated with initiation of protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimens, (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.94; 95% CI: 1.25-3.03 and AOR = 1.76; 95% CI: 1.09-2.85, respectively) and female gender (AOR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.03-4.12 and AOR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.17-4.74, respectively). Both mixed lipodystrophy and reported dyslipidaemia were associated only with PI inclusion in the initial regimen (AOR = 2.27; 95% CI: 1.14-4.53 and AOR = 2.14; 95% CI: 1.26-3.65, respectively). Similar results were obtained in analysis of individuals retained in initial treatment groups throughout follow-up. CONCLUSION: Incident morphological and lipid abnormalities are common among individuals initiating first-time antiretroviral therapy. Use of PI was consistently associated with all lipodystrophy-related abnormalities after adjustment for a broad range of patient personal, clinical and treatment characteristics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".