Prognostic importance of anaemia in HIV type-1-infected patients starting antiretroviral therapy: collaborative analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background-In HIV-1 infected patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the prognostic value of haemoglobin when starting HAART, and of changes in haemoglobin levels, are not well defined.Methods-We combined data from 10 prospective studies of 12,100 previously untreated individuals (25% women).A total of 4,222 patients (35%) were anaemic: 131 patients (1.1%) had severe (<8.0 g/dl), 1120 (9%) had moderate (males: 8.0 to <11.0 g/dl, females 8.0 to <10.0 g/dl) and 2971 (25%) had mild anaemia (males 11.0 to <13.0 g/dl, females 10.0 to <12.0 g/dl).We separately analyzed progression to AIDS or death from baseline and six months using Weibull models, adjusting for CD4 cell count, age, sex, and other variables.Results-During 48,420 person-years of follow-up 1,448 patients developed at least one AIDS event and 857 patients died.Anaemia at baseline was independently associated with higher mortality: the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for mild anaemia was 1.42 (1.17-1.73),for moderate anaemia 2.56 (2.07-3.18)and for severe anaemia 5.26 (3.55-7.81).Corresponding figures for progression to AIDS were 1.60 (1.37-1.86),2.00 (1.66-2.40)and 2.24 (1.46-3.42).At 6 months the prevalence of anaemia had declined to 26%.Baseline anaemia continued to predict mortality (and to a lesser extent progression to AIDS) in patients with normal haemoglobin or mild anaemia at 6 months.Conclusions-Anaemia at the start of HAART is an important prognostic factor for short and long term prognosis, including in patients whose haemoglobin levels improve or normalize during the first 6 months of HAART.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".