MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147308092 · doi:10.1086/379810

Enfuvirtide (T‐20) Cross‐Reactive Glycoprotein 41 Antibody Does Not Impair the Efficacy or Safety of Enfuvirtide

2003· article· en· W2147308092 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Walmsley, Keith Henry, Christine Katlama, Mark Nelson, Antonella Castagna, Jacques Reynes, Bonaventura Clotet, James Hoi Po Hui, Miklos Salgo, Ralph DeMasi, John Delehanty

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnfuvirtideGp41AntibodyRegimenMedicineInternal medicineImmunologyVirologyPharmacologyEpitope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the effect of enfuvirtide cross-reactive glycoprotein 41 (gp41) antibody on the efficacy or safety of enfuvirtide in patients participating in 1 of 2 24-week phase 3 clinical trials (T-20 vs. optimized regimen only [TORO] 1 and TORO 2). Serum samples from human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients receiving enfuvirtide plus optimized background (OB) and from patients receiving OB only were evaluated for enfuvirtide cross-reactive gp41 antibodies. Most patients had detectable levels of antibody at baseline; 78% of patients treated with enfuvirtide plus OB had a > or =30% decrease in level of antibody, compared with 43% of patients treated with OB only. Baseline antibody status did not influence virological responses to enfuvirtide-containing treatment. Favorable virological responses were more common among patients who experienced a > or =30% decrease from baseline than among those who experienced either an increase or a lesser decrease. A decrease in virus load correlated with a decrease in level of antibody. Safety was unaffected by the presence of positive antibody at any time point or change in level of antibody. There was no evidence that enfuvirtide cross-reactive gp41 antibody affects the efficacy or safety of enfuvirtide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207