Low CD4/CD8 ratio predicts cancer risk among adults with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Independent of CD4 cell count, low CD4/CD8 ratio in people with HIV (PWH) is associated with deleterious immune senescence, activation, and inflammation, which may contribute to carcinogenesis and excess cancer risk. We examined whether low CD4/CD8 ratios predicted cancer among PWH in the USA and Canada. Methods We examined all cancer-free PWH with one or more CD4/CD8 values from NA-ACCORD observational cohorts with validated cancer diagnoses between 1998-2016. We evaluated the association between time-lagged CD4/CD8 ratio and risk of specific cancers in multivariable, time-updated Cox proportional hazard models using restricted cubic spines. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, hepatitis C virus, and time-updated CD4 cell count, HIV RNA, and history of AIDS-defining illness. Results Among 83,893 PWH, there were 5,628 incident cancers, including lung cancer (n=755), Kaposi sarcoma (KS, n=501), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=497), and anal cancer (n=439). Median age at cohort entry was 43 years, 87% were male, and 43% were white. Overall median six-month lagged CD4/CD8 ratio was 0.52 (interquartile range: 0.30-0.82). Compared with six-month lagged CD4/CD8=0.80, CD4/CD8=0.30 was associated with increased risk of any incident cancer (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.24 [95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.35]). CD4/CD8 ratio was also inversely associated with NHL, KS, lung cancer, anal cancer, and colorectal cancer in adjusted analyses (all p <0.05). Results were similar using 12-, 18-, and 24-month lagged CD4/CD8 values. Conclusions Low CD4/CD8 ratio up to 24 months prior to cancer diagnosis was independently associated with increased cancer risk in PWH and may serve as a clinical biomarker.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".