Canadian Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Cytomegalovirus Disease in HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of HIV-infected patients with cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease has changed significantly with the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). OBJECTIVES: These updated guidelines are intended to provide practical help to physicians managing HIV-positive patients with or at risk for CMV disease. METHODS: The 10 members of the Canadian CMV Disease in HIV/AIDS Consensus Group were infectious disease specialists, a primary care physician and ophthalmologists with expertise in HIV and CMV infection. Financial support by Hoffmann-La Roche Canada Ltd was unrestricted, and was limited to travel expenses and honoraria. The consensus group met in June and October 2002. Key areas to be considered were identified, and group members selected, reviewed and presented relevant recent literature for their assigned section for the group's consideration. Evidence was assessed based on established criteria, which were expert opinions of the members. Draft documents were circulated to the entire group and modified until consensus was reached. The final guidelines represent the group's consensus agreement. The guidelines were approved by the Canadian Infectious Disease Society. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines address symptom monitoring, screening for early detection and prevention, and treatment using oral, intravenous and intraocular anti-CMV therapies in conjunction with HAART.
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 | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".