Apples to Apples? A Comparison of Real-World Tolerability of Antiretrovirals in Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously characterized a human betaretrovirus and linked infection with the development of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). There are in vitro and in vivo data demonstrating that antiretroviral therapy used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can be repurposed to treat betaretroviruses. As such, PBC patients have been treated with nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), alone and in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor in case studies and clinical trials. However, a randomized controlled trial using combination antiretroviral therapy with lopinavir was terminated early because 70% of PBC patients discontinued therapy because of gastrointestinal side effects. In the open-label extension, patients tolerating combination therapy underwent a significant reduction in serum liver parameters, whereas those on NRTIs alone rebounded to baseline. Herein, we compare clinical experience in the experimental use of antiretroviral agents in patients with PBC with the broader experience of using these agents in people living with HIV infection. While the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects in the PBC population appears somewhat increased compared to those with HIV infection, the clinical improvement observed in patients with PBC suggests that further studies using the newer and better tolerated antiretroviral agents are warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".