A randomized trial to study first-line combination therapy with or without a protease inhibitor in HIV-1-infected patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare one protease inhibitor (PI)-based and two PI-sparing antiretroviral therapy regimens. METHODS: International, open label, randomized study of antiretroviral drug-naive patients, with CD4 lymphocyte counts >/= 200 x 106 cells/l and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels > 500 copies/ml. Treatment assignment to stavudine and didanosine plus indinavir or nevirapine or lamivudine. Primary study endpoint was the percentage of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels < 500 copies/ml after 48 weeks in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT). RESULTS: In total, 298 patients were enrolled. After 48 weeks, the percentage of patients in the indinavir, nevirapine and lamivudine arms with HIV-1 RNA < 500 copies/ml was 57.0%, 58.4% and 58.7%, respectively, in an ITT analysis. After 96 weeks of follow-up, these percentages were 50.0%, 59.6% and 45.0%, respectively. The percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml was significantly less for those allocated to lamivudine in an on-treatment analysis after 48 and 96 weeks of follow-up. Patients in the nevirapine arm experienced a smaller increase in the absolute number of CD4 T lymphocytes. There were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: A comparable virological response can be achieved with first-line PI-base and PI-sparing regimens. The triple nucleoside regimen utilized may be less likely to result in viral suppression to < 50 copies/ml, while the nevirapine-based regimen is associated with a lower increase in CD4 T lymphocytes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it