Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within 2 years of defining acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) as a distinctive syndrome in 1981, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was identified as the causative agent. Dermatological involvement in AIDS has been appreciated since the disease was first recognised. Mucocutaneous involvement establishes criteria for diagnosis and staging; the prognostic significance of some complications, for example pruritic papular eruption/eosinophilic folliculitis, hairy leukoplakia and Kaposi sarcoma (KS), was well recognised before specific treatments were introduced. The proportion of patients with skin complications and the number of these manifestations in any one patient increase as HIV infection progresses and AIDS develops. The incidence and severity of several common cutaneous diseases (such as mollusca, herpes simplex and seborrhoeic dermatitis) are increased in patients with HIV and this correlates in many instances with the absolute numbers of CD4+ T cells. The effect HIV infection may have on some dermatological conditions such as psoriasis and leprosy is less clear‐cut. The advent of highly active combined antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been incalculably beneficial to patients with HIV, but novel side effects of these drugs (such as lipodystrophy) have emerged, and the skin can be affected by manifestations of the immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome/immune reconstitution associated disease. The dermatological complications of HIV and AIDS may be distressing to patients and difficult for dermatologists to diagnose and manage. Also, many dermatoses presenting in the population at large need to be regarded as ‘indicator conditions’ to prompt advice about, and initiation of, HIV testing.
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) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".