MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607447693 · doi:10.1016/s2352-3018(17)30043-7

Comparison of dynamic monitoring strategies based on CD4 cell counts in virally suppressed, HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a prospective, observational study

2017· article· en· W2607447693 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen C. Caniglia, Lauren E. Cain, Caroline Sabin, James M. Robins, Roger Logan, Sophie Abgrall, Michael J. Mugavero, Sonia Hernández–Dı́az, Laurence Meyer, Rémonie Seng, Daniel R. Drozd, George R. Seage, Fabrice Bonnet, François Dabis, Richard D. Moore, Peter Reiss, Ard van Sighem, William C. Mathews, Santiago Moreno, Steven G. Deeks, Roberto Muga, Stephen Boswell, Elena Ferrer, Joseph J. Eron, Sonia Napravnik, Sophie José, Andrew Phillips, Amy C. Justice, Janet P. Tate, M. John Gill, Antônio Guilherme Pacheco, Valdiléa G. Veloso, Heiner C. Bucher, Matthias Egger, Hansjakob Furrer, Kholoud Porter, Giota Touloumi, Heidi M. Crane, José M. Miró, Jonathan A C Sterne, Dominique Costagliola, Michael S Saag, Miguel A. Hernán

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet HIV · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCilagNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthViiV HealthcareInstituto de Salud Carlos IIINational Institute for Health and Care ResearchLes Laboratories Pierre FabreGilead SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePfizerNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyConfoundingViral loadHazard ratioProspective cohort studyRegimenAntiretroviral therapyDrug holidayMarginal structural modelInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DemographyImmunologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet HIVSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207