MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789779680 · doi:10.1097/coh.0b013e3282fbaaba

Inhibitory quotient in HIV pharmacology

2008· article· en· W2789779680 on OpenAlexaff
Charles la Porte

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTherapeutic drug monitoringQuotientPharmacologyDarunavirDrugIntegrase inhibitorMedicineInhibitory postsynaptic potentialRaltegravirCutoffDrug resistanceBiologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)VirologyMathematicsAntiretroviral therapyInternal medicineViral loadGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses the use of the inhibitory quotient in light of therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs. The inhibitory quotient is a parameter that combines viral resistance data with drug exposure data, and has its main role in therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in experienced patients. Data from recent clinical studies investigating inhibitory quotient cutoffs to be used in therapeutic drug monitoring will be reviewed. In addition points for discussion regarding the use and study of inhibitory quotients will be presented. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of studies generated data on the use of the inhibitory quotient in general and the genotypic inhibitory quotient in particular. Most of these studies define a cutoff inhibitory quotient value, above which the virological response rate is higher. These cutoff values can be used in therapeutic drug monitoring and give guidance to the clinician on dose adjustments. Genotypic inhibitory quotient cutoff values are available for amprenavir, atazanavir, darunavir, lopinavir, saquinavir and tipranavir. SUMMARY: The inhibitory quotient is becoming a valuable tool in therapeutic drug monitoring. At this moment most data are available for the genotypic inhibitory quotient. Nevertheless, a consensus needs to be reached on a number of items, including the methods to study inhibitory quotient as well as the mathematical and virological background.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HIV and AIDSSame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207