Predicting Virological Response to HIV Treatment Over Time: A Tool for Settings With Different Definitions of Virological Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Definitions of virological response vary from <50 up to 1000 copies of HIV-RNA/mL. Our previous models estimate the probability of HIV drug combinations reducing the viral load to <50 copies/mL, with no indication of whether higher thresholds of response may be achieved. Here, we describe the development of models that predict absolute viral load over time. METHODS: Two sets of random forest models were developed using 50,270 treatment change episodes from more than 20 countries. The models estimated viral load at different time points following the introduction of a new regimen from variables including baseline viral load, CD4 count, and treatment history. One set also used genotypes in their predictions. Independent data sets were used for evaluation. RESULTS: Both models achieved highly significant correlations between predicted and actual viral load changes (r = 0.67-0.68, mean absolute error of 0.73-0.74 log10 copies/mL). The models produced curves of virological response over time. Using failure definitions of <100, 400, or 1000 copies/mL, but not 50 copies/mL, both models were able to identify alternative regimens they predicted to be effective for the majority of cases where the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. CONCLUSIONS: These models could be useful for selecting the optimum combination therapy for patients requiring a change in therapy in settings using any definition of virological response. They also give an idea of the likely response curve over time. Given that genotypes are not required, these models could be a useful addition to the HIV-TRePS system for those in resource-limited settings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".