MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285387843 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270590

A randomized control trial of high-dose micronutrient-antioxidant supplementation in healthy persons with untreated HIV infection

2022· article· en· W4285387843 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy Wobeser, Joanne E. McBane, Louise Balfour, Brian Conway, M. John Gill, Harold Huff, Donald L. P. Kilby, Dean Fergusson, Ranjeeta Mallick, Edward J. Mills, Katherine A. Muldoon, Anita Rachlis, Edward D. Ralph, Ron Rosenes, Joel Singer, Neera Singhal, Darrell H. S. Tan, Nancy Tremblay, Dong Vo, Sharon Walmsley, D. William Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoCanadian College of Naturopathic MedicineUniversity of OttawaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalQueen's UniversityVancouver Infectious Diseases CentreHIV Legal Network
FundersCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchOttawa Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario HIV Treatment NetworkUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineMicronutrientHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialClinical trialInternal medicineAsymptomaticPlaceboMicronutrient deficiencyViral loadHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ImmunologyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although micronutrient and antioxidant supplementation are widely used by persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a therapeutic role beyond recommended daily allowances (RDA) remains unproven. An oral high-dose micronutrient and antioxidant supplement (Treatment) was compared to an RDA supplement (Control) for time to progressive immunodeficiency or initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial. PLWH were recruited from Canadian HIV Trials Network sites, and followed quarterly for two years. Eligible participants were asymptomatic, antiretroviral treatment (ART)-naïve, HIV-seropositive adults with a CD4 T lymphocyte count (CD4 count) between 375-750 cells/μL. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to receive Treatment or Control supplements. The primary outcome was a composite of time-to-first of confirmed CD4 count below 350 cells/μL, initiation of ART, AIDS-defining illness or death. Primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes included CD4 count trajectory from baseline to ART initiation or two years. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board reviewed the study for safety, recruitment and protocol adherence every six months. RESULTS: Of 171 enrolled participants: 66 (38.6%) experienced a primary outcome: 27 reached a CD4 count below 350 cells/μL, and 57 started ART. There was no significant difference in time-to-first outcome between groups (Hazard Ratio = 1.05; 95%CI: 0.65, 1.70), or in time to any component outcome. Using intent-to-treat censoring, mean annualized rates of CD4 count decline were -42.703 cells/μL and -79.763 cells/μL for Treatment and Control groups, with no statistical difference in the mean change between groups (-37.06 cells/μL/52 weeks, 95%CI: (-93.59, 19.47); p = 0.1993). Accrual was stopped at 171 of the 212 intended participants after an interim analysis for futility, although participant follow-up was completed. CONCLUSIONS: In ART-naïve PLWH, high-dose antioxidant, micronutrient supplementation compared to RDA supplementation had no significant effect on disease progression or ART initiation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00798772.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHIV-related health complications and treatments→French-language works237,207→