Bayesian estimation of HIV acquisition dates for prevention trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate timing estimates of when participants acquire HIV in HIV prevention trials are necessary for determining antibody levels at acquisition. The Antibody-Mediated Prevention (AMP) Studies showed that a passively administered broadly neutralizing antibody can prevent the acquisition of HIV from a neutralization-sensitive virus. We developed a pipeline for estimating the date of detectable HIV acquisition (DDA) in AMP Study participants using diagnostic and viral sequence data. Using a Bayesian strategy that combines three streams of data (REN [rev/vpu/env/Δnef] sequence, GP [gag/Δpol] sequence, and diagnostic) where their 95% credible intervals overlap based on pre-specified criteria and decision rules. We evaluated the performance of our AMP pipeline using PacBio viral sequence data from 41 participants across two prospective acute HIV acquisition cohort studies, FRESH and RV217, with twice-weekly sampling. These cohort studies enrolled young women in South Africa and men and women in Kenya and Thailand, respectively, with a high likelihood of HIV acquisition. In evaluating performance, "true DDA" was the center of bounds between last-negative and first-positive RNA diagnostic tests (median time 4 days, range 2-7 days); bias was the mean difference between estimated and true DDA. Using diagnostic data alone yielded timing estimates with a bias of 2.4 days and root mean square error (RMSE) of 7.9 days. These results were improved using sequence + diagnostic data (bias 1.5 days, RMSE 6.9 days), as well as by restricting sequence-based estimation to samples from ≤5 weeks post-DDA (bias 0.2 days, RMSE 7.8 days).IMPORTANCEIn HIV prevention trials, accurate timing estimates of when individual participants acquire HIV can be used to estimate antibody levels at the time of acquisition, which is useful for projecting antibody levels needed for prevention. The results we report here suggest that if sequence-based estimation of acquisition timing is used in future clinical trials of combination broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) regimens or multispecific bnAbs for HIV prevention, a sampling frequency of at least monthly is needed. Moreover, in the samples analyzed here, we observed less bias in sequence-based timing estimation for samples taken <5 weeks post-DDA. This observation is consistent with the timing of immune-driven selective pressures that may negatively impact the power to detect acquisition sieve effects.
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 | 0.071 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".