MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143265231 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0807252

Effect of Early versus Deferred Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV on Survival

2009· article· en· W2143265231 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mari M. Kitahata, Stephen J. Gange, Alison G. Abraham, Barry Merriman, Michael S Saag, Amy C. Justice, Robert S. Hogg, Steven G. Deeks, Joseph J. Eron, John T. Brooks, Sean B. Rourke, M. John Gill, Ronald J. Bosch, Jeffrey N. Martin, Marina B. Klein, Lisa P. Jacobson, Benigno Rodríguez, Timothy R. Sterling, Gregory D. Kirk, Sonia Napravnik, Anita Rachlis, Liviana Calzavara, Michael A. Horberg, Michael J. Silverberg, Kelly A. Gebo, James J. Goedert, Constance A. Benson, Ann C. Collier, Stephen E. Van Rompaey, Heidi M. Crane, Rosemary G. McKaig, Bryan Lau, Aimee Freeman, Richard D. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoAIDS VancouverUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthGilead SciencesGlaxoSmithKlineNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismKaiser PermanenteOntario HIV Treatment NetworkJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Institute of Mental HealthPfizerNational Institute on AgingNational Institute on Drug AbuseBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineAntiretroviral therapyAsymptomaticInternal medicineCohortConfidence intervalHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Relative riskSurgeryViral loadImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal time for the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for asymptomatic patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted two parallel analyses involving a total of 17,517 asymptomatic patients with HIV infection in the United States and Canada who received medical care during the period from 1996 through 2005. None of the patients had undergone previous antiretroviral therapy. In each group, we stratified the patients according to the CD4+ count (351 to 500 cells per cubic millimeter or >500 cells per cubic millimeter) at the initiation of antiretroviral therapy. In each group, we compared the relative risk of death for patients who initiated therapy when the CD4+ count was above each of the two thresholds of interest (early-therapy group) with that of patients who deferred therapy until the CD4+ count fell below these thresholds (deferred-therapy group). RESULTS: In the first analysis, which involved 8362 patients, 2084 (25%) initiated therapy at a CD4+ count of 351 to 500 cells per cubic millimeter, and 6278 (75%) deferred therapy. After adjustment for calendar year, cohort of patients, and demographic and clinical characteristics, among patients in the deferred-therapy group there was an increase in the risk of death of 69%, as compared with that in the early-therapy group (relative risk in the deferred-therapy group, 1.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 2.26; P<0.001). In the second analysis involving 9155 patients, 2220 (24%) initiated therapy at a CD4+ count of more than 500 cells per cubic millimeter and 6935 (76%) deferred therapy. Among patients in the deferred-therapy group, there was an increase in the risk of death of 94% (relative risk, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.79; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The early initiation of antiretroviral therapy before the CD4+ count fell below two prespecified thresholds significantly improved survival, as compared with deferred therapy.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1,109
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207