Multiphenotype association study of patients randomized to initiate antiretroviral regimens in AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol A5202
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-throughput approaches are increasingly being used to identify genetic associations across multiple phenotypes simultaneously. Here, we describe a pilot analysis that considered multiple on-treatment laboratory phenotypes from antiretroviral therapy-naive patients who were randomized to initiate antiretroviral regimens in a prospective clinical trial, AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol A5202. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: From among 5 9545 294 polymorphisms imputed genome-wide, we analyzed 2544, including 2124 annotated in the PharmGKB, and 420 previously associated with traits in the GWAS Catalog. We derived 774 phenotypes on the basis of context from six variables: plasma atazanavir (ATV) pharmacokinetics, plasma efavirenz (EFV) pharmacokinetics, change in the CD4+ T-cell count, HIV-1 RNA suppression, fasting low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and fasting triglycerides. Permutation testing assessed the likelihood of associations being by chance alone. Pleiotropy was assessed for polymorphisms with the lowest P-values. RESULTS: This analysis included 1181 patients. At P less than 1.5×10, most associations were not by chance alone. Polymorphisms with the lowest P-values for EFV pharmacokinetics (CYPB26 rs3745274), low-density lipoprotein -cholesterol (APOE rs7412), and triglyceride (APOA5 rs651821) phenotypes had been associated previously with those traits in previous studies. The association between triglycerides and rs651821 was present with ATV-containing regimens, but not with EFV-containing regimens. Polymorphisms with the lowest P-values for ATV pharmacokinetics, CD4 T-cell count, and HIV-1 RNA phenotypes had not been reported previously to be associated with that trait. CONCLUSION: Using data from a prospective HIV clinical trial, we identified expected genetic associations, potentially novel associations, and at least one context-dependent association. This study supports high-throughput strategies that simultaneously explore multiple phenotypes from clinical trials' datasets for genetic associations.
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 | 0.015 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.012 |
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".