CD4:CD8 Ratio and CD8 Count as Prognostic Markers for Mortality in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Infected Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy: The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated whether CD4:CD8 ratio and CD8 count were prognostic for all-cause, AIDS, and non-AIDS mortality in virologically suppressed patients with high CD4 count. METHODS: We used data from 13 European and North American cohorts of human immunodeficiency virus-infected, antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive adults who started ART during 1996-2010, who were followed from the date they had CD4 count ≥350 cells/μL and were virologically suppressed (baseline). We used stratified Cox models to estimate unadjusted and adjusted (for sex, people who inject drugs, ART initiation year, and baseline age, CD4 count, AIDS, duration of ART) all-cause and cause-specific mortality hazard ratios for tertiles of CD4:CD8 ratio (0-0.40, 0.41-0.64 [reference], >0.64) and CD8 count (0-760, 761-1138 [reference], >1138 cells/μL) and examined the shape of associations using cubic splines. RESULTS: During 276526 person-years, 1834 of 49865 patients died (249 AIDS-related; 1076 non-AIDS-defining; 509 unknown/unclassifiable deaths). There was little evidence that CD4:CD8 ratio was prognostic for all-cause mortality after adjustment for other factors: the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for lower vs middle tertile was 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.25). The association of CD8 count with all-cause mortality was U-shaped: aHR for higher vs middle tertile was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01-1.26). AIDS-related mortality declined with increasing CD4:CD8 ratio and decreasing CD8 count. There was little evidence that CD4:CD8 ratio or CD8 count was prognostic for non-AIDS mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort collaboration, the magnitude of adjusted associations of CD4:CD8 ratio or CD8 count with mortality was too small for them to be useful as independent prognostic markers in virally suppressed patients on ART.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".