A Systematical Review on ART Use in HTLV Infection: Clinical, Virological, and Immunological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV) infection affects over ten million people worldwide, but there is no effective treatment so far. This review describes the virological, immunological, and clinical outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people with HTLV infection. This systematic review followed PRISMA reporting guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42022350076. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, adapted for cross-sectional studies, and Rob-2 were used to assess the methodological quality of these studies. Systematic searches were conducted in the Medline (PubMed), Scopus (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) databases. We retrieved data from eight methodologically diverse articles on treatment of patients infected by HTLV-1 or HTLV-2 alone, or coinfected by HIV-1, who received Raltegravir, Tenofovir, Lamivudine, or Zidovudine. The proviral load decreased in three out of seven studies over 4 to 48 weeks of antiretroviral use. Cellular immune response (CD4, CD8, CD25, CD69, and CD71 cells) was evaluated in six studies. While no significant clinical improvement was observed, all studies reported clinical stability during treatment. Despite the demonstrated antiviral activity of ART, in vitro, clinical improvement was not proven. Most studies showed disease stability during ART use, suggesting potential clinical benefits. There is a need of larger, well-controlled trials to define the role of ART in the treatment of HTLV infection.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".