CD4 count at antiretroviral therapy initiation and the risk of loss to follow-up: results from a multicentre cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation is now recommended irrespective of CD4 count. However data on the relationship between CD4 count at ART initiation and loss to follow-up (LTFU) are limited and conflicting. METHODS: We conducted a cohort analysis including all adults initiating ART (2008-2012) at three public sector sites in South Africa. LTFU was defined as no visit in the 6 months before database closure. The Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox's proportional hazards models examined the relationship between CD4 count at ART initiation and 24-month LTFU. Final models were adjusted for demographics, year of ART initiation, programme expansion and corrected for unascertained mortality. RESULTS: Among 17 038 patients, the median CD4 at initiation increased from 119 (IQR 54-180) in 2008 to 257 (IQR 175-318) in 2012. In unadjusted models, observed LTFU was associated with both CD4 counts <100 cells/μL and CD4 counts ≥300 cells/μL. After adjustment, patients with CD4 counts ≥300 cells/μL were 1.35 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.63) times as likely to be LTFU after 24 months compared to those with a CD4 150-199 cells/μL. This increased risk for patients with CD4 counts ≥300 cells/μL was largest in the first 3 months on treatment. Correction for unascertained deaths attenuated the association between CD4 counts <100 cells/μL and LTFU while the association between CD4 counts ≥300 cells/μL and LTFU persisted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating ART at higher CD4 counts may be at increased risk for LTFU. With programmes initiating patients at higher CD4 counts, models of ART delivery need to be reoriented to support long-term retention.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".