MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590991181 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169255

Interferon β-1a for the treatment of Ebola virus disease: A historically controlled, single-arm proof-of-concept trial

2017· article· en· W2590991181 on OpenAlexafffund
Mandy Kader Kondé, Darren P. Baker, Fodé Amara Traoré, Mamadou Sow, Alioune Camara, Alpha Amadou Barry, Doussou Mara, Abdoulaye Barry, Moussa Coné, Ibrahima Kaba, Abdoul Habib Béavogui, Stephan Günther, Melania Pintilie, Eleanor N. Fish

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersPublic Health EnglandInstitute of Infection and ImmunityHorizon 2020Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitRobert Koch InstitutKoch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyBiogenBoettcher Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEbola virusViremiaCohortInternal medicineCohort studyClinical trialViral loadRandomized controlled trialDiseaseImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date there are no approved antiviral drugs for the treatment of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Based on our in vitro evidence of antiviral activity of interferon (IFN)-ß activity against Ebola virus, we conducted a single arm clinical study in Guinea to evaluate the safety and therapeutic efficacy of IFN β-1a treatment for EVD. Nine individuals infected with Ebola virus were treated with IFN β-1a and compared retrospectively with a matched cohort of 21 infected patients receiving standardized supportive care only during the same time period at the same treatment unit. Cognizant of the limitations of having treated only 9 individuals with EVD, the data collected are cautiously considered. When compared to supportive care only, IFN β-1a treatment seemed to facilitate viral clearance from the blood and appeared associated with earlier resolution of disease symptoms. Survival, calculated from the date of consent for those in the trial and date of admission from those in the control cohort, to the date of death, was 19% for those receiving supportive care only, compared to 67% for those receiving supportive care plus IFN β-1a. Given the differences in baseline blood viremia between the control cohort and the IFN-treated cohort, an additional 17 controls were included for a subset analysis, from other treatment units in Guinea, matched with the IFN-treated patients based on age and baseline blood viremia. Subset analyses using this expanded control cohort suggests that patients without IFN β-1a treatment were ~ 1.5-1.9 fold more likely to die than those treated. Viewed altogether the results suggest a rationale for further clinical evaluation of IFN β-1a.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207