MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166415870 · doi:10.1177/135965350100600103

Laboratory Guidelines for the Practical Use of HIV Drug Resistance Tests in Patient Follow-Up

2001· article· en· W2166415870 on OpenAlexaff
François Houÿez, Dénes Bánhegyi, Bonaventura Clotet, G Schrijver, KAL De Smet, WW Hall, Richard Harrigan, Nicholas S. Hellmann, Kurt Hertogs, C. D. Holtzer, Brendan Larder, Deenan Pillay, Esther Race, J.C. Schmit, Rob Schuurman, E Shulse, Anders Sönnerborg, Veronica Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueAntiviral Therapy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsAIDS Vancouver
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHIV drug resistanceDrug resistanceMedicineDrugIntensive care medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Quality assuranceAntiretroviral therapyViral loadPharmacologyExternal quality assessmentImmunologyPathologyBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HIV drug resistance is one of the major limitations in the successful treatment of HIV-infected patients using currently available antiretroviral combination therapies. When appropriate, drug susceptibility profiles should be taken into consideration in the choice of a specific combination therapy. Guidelines recommending resistance testing in certain circumstances have been issued. Many clinicians have access to resistance testing and will increasingly use these results in their treatment decisions. In this document, we comment on the different methods available, and the relevant issues relating to the clinical application of these tests. Specifically, the following recommendations can be made: (i) genotypic and phenotypic HIV-1 drug resistance analyses can yield complementary information for the clinician. However, insufficient information currently exists as to which approach is preferable in any particular clinical setting; (ii) when HIV-1 drug resistance testing is required, it is recommended that testing be performed on plasma samples obtained before starting, stopping or changing therapy, on samples that have a viral load above the detection limit of the resistance test; (iii) the panel recommends that genotypic and phenotypic HIV-1 drug resistance testing for clinical purposes be performed in a certified laboratory under strict quality control and quality assurance standards; and (iv) the panel recommends that resistance testing laboratories provide clinicians with resistance reports that include a list of drug-related resistance mutations (genotype) and/or a list of drug-related fold resistance values (phenotype), with interpretations of each by an experienced virologist. The interpretation of genotypic and phenotypic analysis is a complex and developing science, and in order to understand HIV-1 drug resistance reports, communication between the requesting clinician and the expert that interpreted the resistance report is recommended.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.040

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations68
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntiviral TherapySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207