An update to the HIV-TRePS system: the development and evaluation of new global and local computational models to predict HIV treatment outcomes, with or without a genotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Optimizing antiretroviral drug combination on an individual basis in resource-limited settings is challenging because of the limited availability of drugs and genotypic resistance testing. Here, we describe our latest computational models to predict treatment responses, with or without a genotype, and compare the potential utility of global and local models as a treatment tool for South Africa. METHODS: Global random forest models were trained to predict the probability of virological response to therapy following virological failure using 29 574 treatment change episodes (TCEs) without a genotype, 3179 of which were from South Africa and were used to develop local models. In addition, 15 130 TCEs including genotypes were used to develop another set of models. The 'no-genotype' models were tested with an independent global test set (n = 1700) plus a subset from South Africa (n = 222). The genotype models were tested with 750 independent cases. RESULTS: The global no-genotype models achieved area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.82 and 0.79 with the global and South African tests sets, respectively, and the South African models achieved AUCs of 0.70 and 0.79. The genotype models achieved an AUC of 0.84. The global no-genotype models identified more alternative, locally available regimens that were predicted to be effective for cases that failed their new regimen in the South African clinics than the local models. Both sets of models were significantly more accurate predictors of outcomes than genotyping with rules-based interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These latest global models predict treatment responses accurately even without a genotype, out-performed the local South African models and have the potential to help optimize therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".