A Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Rosiglitazone for HIV‐Related Lipoatrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thiazolidinediones such as rosiglitazone may have benefit in ameliorating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) lipoatrophy. METHODS: HIV-positive patients receiving stable, protease inhibitor-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy with HIV lipodystrophy were prospectively randomized to rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) or placebo. The primary end point was the 24-week percentage change in arm fat by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Clinical and anthropometric evaluations, fasting lipid parameters, oral glucose tolerance testing, CD36 expression, quality of life measures, and DEXA scanning were performed at baseline and week 24. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of the 96 enrolled patients were evaluated. Median age was 46.8 years, 97.4% were male, and 54% were treated with thymidine analogues. Median baseline limb fat was 3.76 and 2.99 kg in the rosiglitazone and control groups, respectively. Median changes in arm, leg, trunk, and total body fat at 24 weeks were not significantly different between groups (7.1% vs. 5.0% [P=.94]; 0.1% vs. -2.4% [P=.90]; 1.2% vs. -1.4% [P=.81]; and 1.7% vs. 0.4% [P=.76]). There were no significant changes in secondary end points. There was no correlation between changes in body fat or treatment-arm and CD36 expression. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized, placebo-controlled trial did not show benefit of 4 mg/day of rosiglitazone on lipoatrophy or metabolic parameters in patients with HIV lipodystrophy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".