Bayesian network analyses of resistance pathways against efavirenz and nevirapine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the role of novel mutations selected by treatment with efavirenz or nevirapine, and investigate the influence of HIV-1 subtype on nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (nNRTI) resistance pathways. DESIGN: By finding direct dependencies between treatment-selected mutations, the involvement of these mutations as minor or major resistance mutations against efavirenz, nevirapine, or coadministrated nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is hypothesized. In addition, direct dependencies were investigated between treatment-selected mutations and polymorphisms, some of which are linked with subtype, and between NRTI and nNRTI resistance pathways. METHODS: Sequences from a large collaborative database of various subtypes were jointly analyzed to detect mutations selected by treatment. Using Bayesian network learning, direct dependencies were investigated between treatment-selected mutations, NRTI and nNRTI treatment history, and known NRTI resistance mutations. RESULTS: Several novel minor resistance mutations were found: 28K and 196R (for resistance against efavirenz), 101H and 138Q (nevirapine), and 31L (lamivudine). Robust interactions between NRTI mutations (65R, 74V, 75I/M, and 184V) and nNRTI resistance mutations (100I, 181C, 190E and 230L) may affect resistance development to particular treatment combinations. For example, an interaction between 65R and 181C predicts that the nevirapine and tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine combination should be more prone to failure than efavirenz and tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine. CONCLUSION: Bayesian networks were helpful in untangling the selection of mutations by NRTI versus nNRTI treatment, and in discovering interactions between resistance mutations within and between these two classes of inhibitors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".