Randomized Trial to Evaluate Indinavir/Ritonavir versus Saquinavir/Ritonavir in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1–Infected Patients: The MaxCmin1 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This trial assessed the rate of virological failure at 48 weeks in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1-infected patients assigned indinavir/ritonavir (Idv/Rtv; 800/100 mg 2 times daily) or saquinavir/ritonavir (Sqv/Rtv; 1000/100 mg 2 times daily) in an open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase 4 design. Three hundred six patients began the assigned treatment. At 48 weeks, virological failure was seen in 43 (27%) of 158 and 37 (25%) of 148 patients in the Idv/Rtv and Sqv/Rtv arms, respectively. The time to virological failure did not differ between study arms (P=.76). When switching from randomized treatment was counted as failure, this was seen in 78 of 158 patients in the Idv/Rtv arm, versus 51 of 148 patients in the Sqv/Rtv arm (P=.009). A switch from the randomized treatment occurred in 64 (41%) of 158 patients in the Idv/Rtv arm, versus 40 (27%) of 148 patients in the Sqv/Rtv arm (P=.013). Sixty-four percent of the switches occurred because of adverse events. A greater number of treatment-limiting adverse events were observed in the Idv/Rtv arm, relative to the Sqv/Rtv arm. In conclusion, Rtv-boosed Sqv and Idv were found to have comparable antiretroviral effects in the doses studied.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".