HIV protease and reverse transcriptase variation and therapy outcome in antiretroviral-naive individuals from a large North American cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of baseline HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease sequence variation on virologic outcomes in a large cohort of antiretroviral-naive patients in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Population sequencing of RT and protease was performed on baseline viral RNA of all antiretroviral-naive patients first seeking treatment in British Columbia between June 1997 and August 1998 (n = 479). Relative risks of virological failure associated with genotypic differences from a 'standard' HIV strain (HXB2) were assessed for up to 18 months. RESULTS: The prevalence of key baseline mutations known to confer resistance to RT and protease inhibitors (PI) was 3.4 and 3.8%, respectively. No statistically significant impact on virologic outcomes could be established for these patients. However, the data suggest that some individuals (harboring a M184V mutation in RT or a V82I in protease) may have benefited from pre-therapy resistance tests. 'Secondary' mutations in the protease associated with resistance (e.g. codons 10, 36 or 63) were common, but the presence of these secondary mutations, either alone or in combination, did not appear to result in early loss of therapeutic virological suppression. Preliminary analyses suggest that an amino acid change at codon 35 in the protease may be associated with early treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that routine genotyping of naive patients about to start antiretroviral therapy would be of benefit to a relatively small proportion of the population. Secondary mutations associated with resistance to PI alone were not found to affect virologic outcomes significantly.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".