MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169689184 · doi:10.1086/597016

HIV Drug Resistance Tests: An Update on Methods for Calculating Phenotypic Fold Change from a Viral Genotype

2009· letter· en· W2169689184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nobel Bellosillo, Lee T. Bacheler, Jorge Villacian

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerBristol-Myers SquibbAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsMedicineGenotypePhenotypeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Drug resistanceVirologyHIV drug resistanceDrugImmunologyViral loadGeneticsBiologyAntiretroviral therapyPharmacologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tothe Editor— In a recently published article, Hirsch et al. [1] reviewed HIV drug resistance assays used in clinical practice and described a “virtual phenotype” that correlates genotypic data on the plasma HIV-1 RNA of a candidate gene with a large database of paired phenotypes and genotypes. Although the authors cite other bioinformatics systems that generate a calculated fold change (FC), our comments are specific to the Virco Type HIV-1. Hirsch et al. [1] state that virtual phenotype resistance interpretations are limited by a methodology that relies on matches that are based on preselected codons and not on the entire nucleotide sequence and that the “predictive power depends on the number of matched datasets available” [1, p. 274], with high variation for newer drugs with smaller datasets. We would like to note that the matching system used to calculate the FC in their article is no longer the methodology used by the Virco assay. Since July 2006, Virco's bioinformatics engine has been used to calculate the FC for a given sample by the following method [2]. First, linear regression modeling is performed periodically to analyze the relationship between genotype and phenotype in the Virco correlative database, which to date, has >53,000 samples with paired genotypic and phenotypic data. Significant mutations and mutation pairs that affect phenotypic susceptibility to each drug are identified, and their negative or positive impact on the FC is quantified by a resistance weight factor. Second, all of the mutations in a sample genotype are compared on a drug-by-drug basis to the current list of resistance weight factors for the drug. An FC score is then generated by calculating the sum of the values for all resistance weight factors identified in the sample genotype. This methodology is unlike the first generation of the virtual phenotype, which sought to identify matches to viruses with very similar mutational profiles. With the current linear modeling engine, accurate FC values can be reported regardless of whether there are viruses with similar mutational profiles in the database. Potential conflicts of interest. N.A.B. is the Director of Medical Affairs USA/Canada for Virco Lab. L.B. is the Vice President of Clinical Virology for Virco Lab. J.V. is the Senior Director of Global Medical Affairs for Virco BVBA.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0050.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.009

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.349 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207