Virological failure among people living with HIV receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy in Pune, India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The number of people receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) has increased as global access to ART has expanded. Data on the burden and factors associated with second-line ART virologic failure (VF) from India remain limited. Methods We conducted cross-sectional viral load (VL) testing among adults (≥ 18 years) who were registered at a publicly funded ART center in western India between 2014 and 2015 and had received second-line ART for at least 6 months. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were abstracted from routinely collected programmatic data. Logistic regression evaluated factors associated with VF (defined as VL > 1000 copies/mL). Results Among 400 participants, median age was 40 years (IQR 34–44), 71% (285/400) were male, and 15% (59/400) had VF. Relative to participants without VF, those with VF had lower median CD4 counts (230 vs 406 cells/mm3, p < 0.0001), lower weight at first-line failure (49 vs 52 kg, p = 0.003), were more likely to have an opportunistic infection (17% vs 3%, p < 0.0001) and less likely to have optimal ART adherence (71% vs 87%, p = 0.005). In multivariable analysis, VF was associated with opportunistic infection (aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.77–13.24), lower CD4 count (aOR 4.15; 95% CI, 1.98–8.71) and lower weight at first-line failure (aOR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.33–5.34). Conclusions We found second-line VF in about a sixth of participants in our setting, which was associated with nearly fivefold increased odds in the context of opportunistic infection. Weight could be a useful clinical indicator for second-line VF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".