Personalized life expectancy and treatment benefit index of antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The progression of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) within host includes typical stages and the Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) is shown to be effective in slowing down this progression. There are great challenges in describing the entire HIV disease progression and evaluating comprehensive effects of ART on life expectancy for HIV infected individuals on ART. METHODS: We develop a novel summative treatment benefit index (TBI), based on an HIV viral dynamics model and linking the infection and viral production rates to the Weibull function. This index summarizes the integrated effect of ART on the life expectancy (LE) of a patient, and more importantly, can be reconstructed from the individual clinic data. RESULTS: The proposed model, faithfully mimicking the entire HIV disease progression, enables us to predict life expectancy and trace back the timing of infection. We fit the model to the longitudinal data in a cohort study in China to reconstruct the treatment benefit index, and we describe the dependence of individual life expectancy on key ART treatment specifics including the timing of ART initiation, timing of emergence of drug resistant virus variants and ART adherence. CONCLUSIONS: We show that combining model predictions with monitored CD4 counts and viral loads can provide critical information about the disease progression, to assist the design of ART regimen for maximizing the treatment benefits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".