Consensus recommendations for use of long‐acting antiretroviral medications in the treatment and prevention of HIV‐1: Endorsed by the American Academy of HIV Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy, Canadian HIV and Viral Hepatitis Pharmacists Network, European AIDS Clinical Society, and Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists: An executive summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five long-acting (LA) antiretrovirals (ARVs) are currently available in a limited number of countries worldwide for HIV-1 prevention or treatment - cabotegravir, rilpivirine, lenacapavir, ibalizumab, and dapivirine. Implementing use of LA ARVs in routine clinical practice requires significant changes to the current framework of HIV-1 prevention, treatment, and service provision. Given the novelty, complexity, and interdisciplinary requirements of safe and optimal use of LA ARVs, consensus recommendations on the use of LA ARVs will assist clinicians in optimizing use of these agents. The purpose of these recommendations is to provide guidance for the clinical use of LA ARVs for HIV-1 treatment and prevention. In addition, future areas of research are identified and discussed.
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 | 0.065 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".