Long terms trends in CD4+ cell counts, CD8+ cell counts, and the CD4+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Model trajectories of CD4+ and CD8+ cell counts after starting combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) and use the model to predict trends in these counts and the CD4+ : CD8+ ratio. DESIGN: Cohort study of antiretroviral-naïve HIV-positive adults who started ART after 1997 (ART Cohort Collaboration) with more than 6 months of follow-up data. METHODS: We jointly estimated CD4+ and CD8+ cell count trends and their correlation using a bivariate random effects model, with linear splines describing their population trends, and predicted the CD4+ : CD8+ ratio trend from this model. We assessed whether CD4+ and CD8+ cell count trends and the CD4+ : CD8+ ratio trend varied according to CD4+ cell count at start of ART (baseline), and, whether these trends differed in patients with and without virological failure more than 6 months after starting ART. RESULTS: A total of 39 979 patients were included (median follow-up was 53 months). Among patients with baseline CD4+ cell count at least 50 cells/μl, predicted mean CD8+ cell counts continued to decrease between 3 and 15 years post-ART, partly driving increases in the predicted mean CD4+ : CD8+ ratio. During 15 years of follow-up, normalization of the predicted mean CD4+ : CD8+ ratio (to >1) was only observed among patients with baseline CD4+ cell count at least 200 cells/μl. A higher baseline CD4+ cell count predicted a shorter time to normalization. CONCLUSION: Declines in CD8+ cell count and increases in CD4+ : CD8+ ratio occurred up to 15 years after starting ART. The likelihood of normalization of the CD4+ : CD8+ ratio is strongly related to baseline CD4+ cell count.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".