Modelling the evolution of <scp>HIV</scp>‐1 virulence in response to imperfect therapy and prophylaxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Average HIV-1 virulence appears to have evolved in different directions in different host populations since antiretroviral therapy first became available, and models predict that HIV drugs can select for either higher or lower virulence, depending on how treatment is administered. However, HIV virulence evolution in response to "leaky" therapy (treatment that imperfectly suppresses viral replication) and the use of preventive drugs (pre-exposure prophylaxis) has not been explored. Using adaptive dynamics, we show that higher virulence can evolve when antiretroviral therapy is imperfectly effective and that this evolution erodes some of the long-term clinical and epidemiological benefits of HIV treatment. The introduction of pre-exposure prophylaxis greatly reduces infection prevalence, but can further amplify virulence evolution when it, too, is leaky. Increasing the uptake rate of these imperfect interventions increases selection for higher virulence and can lead to counterintuitive increases in infection prevalence in some scenarios. Although populations almost always fare better with access to interventions than without, untreated individuals could experience particularly poor clinical outcomes when virulence evolves. These findings predict that antiretroviral drugs may have underappreciated evolutionary consequences, but that maximizing drug efficacy can prevent this evolutionary response. We suggest that HIV virulence evolution should be closely monitored as access to interventions continues to improve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".