Using observational data to emulate a randomized trial of dynamic treatment-switching strategies: an application to antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When a clinical treatment fails or shows suboptimal results, the question of when to switch to another treatment arises. Treatment switching strategies are often dynamic because the time of switching depends on the evolution of an individual's time-varying covariates. Dynamic strategies can be directly compared in randomized trials. For example, HIV-infected individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy could be randomized to switching therapy within 90 days of HIV-1 RNA crossing above a threshold of either 400 copies/ml (tight-control strategy) or 1000 copies/ml (loose-control strategy). Methods: We review an approach to emulate a randomized trial of dynamic switching strategies using observational data from the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration, the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems and the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. We estimated the comparative effect of tight-control vs. loose-control strategies on death and AIDS or death via inverse-probability weighting. Results: Of 43 803 individuals who initiated an eligible antiretroviral therapy regimen in 2002 or later, 2001 met the baseline inclusion criteria for the mortality analysis and 1641 for the AIDS or death analysis. There were 21 deaths and 33 AIDS or death events in the tight-control group, and 28 deaths and 41 AIDS or death events in the loose-control group. Compared with tight control, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for loose control were 1.10 (0.73, 1.66) for death, and 1.04 (0.86, 1.27) for AIDS or death. Conclusions: Although our effective sample sizes were small and our estimates imprecise, the described methodological approach can serve as an example for future analyses.
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 | 0.393 | 0.576 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".