Antiretroviral Therapy in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations for antiretroviral therapy for adult human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, based on new information and drugs that are available. PARTICIPANTS: A 17-member international physician panel with antiretroviral research and HIV patient care experience initially convened by the International AIDS Society-USA in December 1995. EVIDENCE: Available clinical and basic science data including phase 3 controlled trials; data on clinical, virologic, and immunologic end points; research conference reports; HIV pathogenesis data; and panel expert opinion. Recommendations were limited to therapies available (US Food and Drug Administration approved) in 1999. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel assesses new research reports and interim results and regularly meets to consider how the new data affect therapy recommendations. Recommendations are updated via full-panel consensus. Guidelines are presented as recommendations if the supporting evidence warrants routine use in the particular situation and as considerations if data are preliminary or incomplete but suggestive. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of new antiretroviral drugs has expanded treatment choices. The importance of adherence, emerging long-term complications of therapy, recognition and management of antiretroviral failure, and new monitoring tools are addressed. Optimal care requires individualized management and ongoing attention to relevant scientific and clinical information in the field.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".