An update to the HIV-TRePS system: the development of new computational models that do not require a genotype to predict HIV treatment outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The optimal individualized selection of antiretroviral drugs in resource-limited settings is challenging because of the limited availability of drugs and genotyping. Here we describe the development of the latest computational models to predict the response to combination antiretroviral therapy without a genotype, for potential use in such settings. METHODS: Random forest models were trained to predict the probability of a virological response to therapy (<50 copies HIV RNA/mL) following virological failure using the following data from 22,567 treatment-change episodes including 1090 from southern Africa: baseline viral load and CD4 cell count, treatment history, drugs in the new regimen, time to follow-up and follow-up viral load. The models were assessed during cross-validation and with an independent global test set of 1000 cases including 100 from southern Africa. The models' accuracy [area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC)] was evaluated and compared with genotyping using rules-based interpretation systems for those cases with genotypes available. RESULTS: The models achieved AUCs of 0.79-0.84 (mean 0.82) during cross-validation, 0.80 with the global test set and 0.78 with the southern African subset. The AUCs were significantly lower (0.56-0.57) for genotyping. CONCLUSIONS: The models predicted virological response to HIV therapy without a genotype as accurately as previous models that included a genotype. They were accurate for cases from southern Africa and significantly more accurate than genotyping. These models will be accessible via the online treatment support tool HIV-TRePS and have the potential to help optimize antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings where genotyping is not generally available.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".