MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887284835 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiy475

Reply to Darcis and Berkhout

2018· letter· en· W2887284835 on OpenAlexaff
Ingeborg E A Wijting, Cynthia Lungu, Bart Rijnders, Hanh Thi Pham, Thibault Mésplède, Suzan D. Pas, Jolanda J.C. Voermans, Rob Schuurman, David van de Vijver, Patrick H. M. Boers, Rob A. Gruters, Charles A. Boucher, Jeroen J. A. van Kampen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersVereniging Trustfonds Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor—With interest we read the comment by Darcis and Berkhout on our article about human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) resistance dynamics in patients failing maintenance monotherapy with the second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) dolutegravir (DTG) [1]. Indeed, caution is warranted when stating that DTG does not elicit resistance in vivo. There is no complete picture yet of which mutations are relevant for DTG resistance in clinical practice. For example, Pham et al recently validated the S230R mutation that is associated with low-level resistance against DTG [2]. Still, no known resistance-associated mutations have been detected in the majority of virologic failures on DTG. The effect of mutations outside integrase on INSTI susceptibility has recently received increasing attention. An in vitro study by Malet et al showed that mutations in the highly conserved 3ʹ-polypurine tract (3ʹ-PPT) can lead to high-level resistance against DTG and other INSTIs [3]. Subsequently, we presented evidence that INSTI resistance via 3ʹ-PPT mutations can occur in patients treated with DTG [4]. The mechanism of 3ʹ-PPT–mediated INSTI resistance remains unknown. DTG excluding mutations in the HIV long terminal repeat end, which is the substrate of HIV integrase [5], or replication of unintegrated HIV [6] have been proposed as alternative mechanisms for DTG resistance. Current HIV genotypic resistance tests focus on mutations within the genes targeted by the antiretroviral drugs. In addition to DTG resistance mutations outside integrase, mutations outside HIV protease have been shown to contribute to HIV protease inhibitor resistance [7]. Thus, a more holistic view of antiretroviral drug resistance is needed. Given the availability of feasible HIV full-genome sequencing at relatively low costs, this should be implemented for resistance testing, in particular for cases of unexplained treatment failure (eg, adequate drug levels and no resistance-associated mutations detected in integrase). To fill in this gap, a global Registry On Second-gEneration inTegrase inhibiTor fAilures (ROSETTA) has been established [8]. ROSETTA aims to provide a global surveillance for virologic failure to second-generation INSTIs and other HIV inhibitors, and links HIV sequences to clinical and virological information. Furthermore, full-length HIV sequencing will be offered to its contributors, and candidate mutations possibly associated with resistance may be validated by phenotyping. This approach should develop a better and more complete understanding of resistance against INSTIs and other antiretroviral drug classes in clinical practice. Financial support. This work was supported by the Erasmus Trustfonds. Potential conflicts of interest. I. E. A. W. reports receiving personal financial support from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work. B. J. A. R. reports receiving research grants from Erasmus Trustfonds during the conduct of the study; receiving research grants from Gilead and MSD outside the context of this work; receiving personal financial support from Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), and GL Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work; receiving travel grants from BMS, MSD, ViiV, Gilead, and AbbVie outside the submitted work; and participating in an advisory board organized by ViiV outside the submitted work. D. A. M. C. v. d. V. reports receiving grants from Gilead Sciences, MSD, ViiV, and Janssen and personal financial support from Janssen, all outside the submitted work. S. D. P. reports receiving consultancy and travel-related financial support from Luminex outside the submitted work. M. E. v. d. E. reports participating in an advisory board organized by ViiV (nonfinancial support) outside the submitted work. C. A. B. B. reports receiving speaker’s fees from ViiV outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed. Presented in part: 15th European Meeting on HIV and Hepatitis, Rome, Italy, 7–9 June 2017. Abstract 14; 16th European AIDS Conference, Milan, Italy, 25–27 October 2017. Abstract PE16/6; 11th Netherlands Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Epidemiology, Prevention, and Treatment, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 22 November 2017. Abstract O07.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.1070.069
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases→Same topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment→French-language works237,207→