MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465570878 · doi:10.1177/135965350200700104

Prevalence and Response to Antiretroviral Therapy of Non-B Subtypes of HIV in Antiretroviral-Naive Individuals in British Columbia

2002· article· en· W2465570878 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christopher S. Alexander, Valentina Montessori, Brian Wynhoven, Winnie Dong, Keith Chan, Michael V. O’Shaughnessy, Theresa Mo, Magda Piaseczny, Julio Montaner, P. Richard Harrigan

Bibliographic record

VenueAntiviral Therapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAIDS Vancouver
FundersCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsVirologyAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Viral loadBiologyLentivirusReverse-transcriptase inhibitorReverse transcriptaseMedicineViral diseaseImmunologyInternal medicinePolymerase chain reactionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America, the B subtype of the major group (M) of HIV-1 predominates. Phylogenetic analysis of HIV reverse transcriptase and protease sequences isolated from 479 therapy-naive patients, first seeking treatment in British Columbia between June 1997 and August 1998, revealed a prevalence of 4.4% non-B virus. A range of different subtypes was identified, including one subtype A, 11 C, two D, five CRF01_AE, and one sample that could not be reliably subtyped. Baseline CD4 courts were significantly lower in individuals harbouring the non-B subtypes (P = 0.02), but baseline viral loads were similar (P = 0.80). In this study, individuals infected with non-B variants did not have a significantly different virological response to therapy after up to 18 months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations64
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntiviral TherapySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207