MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412338323 · doi:10.1080/14712598.2016.1193594

HIV-1 Immunogen: an overview of almost 30 years of clinical testing of a candidate therapeutic vaccine

2016· review· en· W2412338323 on OpenAlexaff
Gina M. Graziani, Jonathan B. Angel

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialHIV vaccineImmunogenAIDS VaccinesIntensive care medicineImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Vaccine trialVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although current antiretroviral therapy (ART) has transformed HIV infection into a chronic, manageable disease, ART does not cure HIV infection. Furthermore, the majority of the world's infected individuals live in resource-limited countries in which access to ART is limited. Thus, the development of an effective therapeutic HIV vaccine would be an invaluable treatment alternative. AREAS COVERED: Developed by the late Dr. Jonas Salk, HIV-1 Immunogen (Remune®) is a candidate therapeutic vaccine that has been studied in thousands of HIV-infected individuals in more than a dozen clinical trials during almost three decades. This Drug Evaluation, which summarizes the results of these trials that have shown the vaccine to be safe and immunogenic, also discusses the contradictory and controversial conclusions drawn from the phases 2, 2/3 and 3 trials that assessed the clinical efficacy of this vaccine. EXPERT OPINION: Given the lack of unequivocal clinical benefits of HIV-1 Immunogen despite almost 30 years of extensive testing, it does not appear, in our view, that this vaccine is a clinically effective immunotherapy. However, inclusion of this vaccine in the newly proposed 'Kick/Shock and Kill' strategy for HIV eradication, or use as a prophylactic vaccine, could be considered for future trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.401
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207