Prevalence and clinical implications of insertions in the HIV-1 p6 <sup>Gag</sup> N-terminal region in drug-naive individuals initiating antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the prevalence and clinical impact of insertions within the HIV-1 p6Gag proline-rich (PTAP) region on initial antiretroviral therapy response in 461 HIV-infected, drug-naive individuals initiating therapy in British Columbia, Canada between June 1996 and August 1998. HIV p6Gag insertions were detected by nested RT-PCR of extracted patient plasma followed by direct DNA sequencing. Insertions were observed in 70 of 423 successfully genotyped samples (16.5%). HIV p6Gag insertions were significantly associated with a lower baseline CD4 cell count (P<<0.05) and the presence of basic amino acids at key positions in the HIV envelope V3 loop linked to a syncytium-inducing phenotype (P<<0.05). After adjusting for baseline factors, no effect of HIV p6Gag insertions was observed on time to virological success (pVL < or = 500 copies/ml), virological failure (subsequent confirmed pVL > or = 500 copies/ml) or immunological failure (confirmed CD4 count below baseline), as evaluated by Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard regression (P>0.1). The data suggest that HIV p6Gag insertions are not exclusively related to drug resistance and may not influence response to antiretroviral therapy, but may be linked to sequence variations in the HIV envelope.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".