An evaluation of gender differences in virologic and immunologic responses to highly active antiretroviral therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated gender differences in virologic and immunologic responses to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) among participants in the HIV Ontario Observational Database. Participants starting their first HAART regimen who had CD4+ and viral load results before and after HAART initiation were included. Of 470 eligible participants, 60 were women. Women had higher CD4+ counts (median 315 vs. 272 cells/μL) and lower viral loads (median 16,887 vs. 33,185 copies/mL) prior to initiating HAART. No gender difference was observed in time to an undetectable viral load after starting HAART (adjusted relative hazard: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 1.45). Women were significantly more likely to experience virologic rebound after initial suppression (adjusted relative hazard: 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 0.89). No gender difference was found in time to a >= 20% increase in CD4+ cells. However, the absolute increase in CD4+ counts was greater in women (mean 470.90 vs. 288.50 cells/μL).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".