Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 8, 2026

Screening Cotton Genotypes for Reniform Nematode Resistance
Published on: May 2, 2019
Impact of Changes Over Time in the Stanford University Genotypic Resistance Interpretation Algorithm
Stephen A Hart1, Saran Vardhanabhuti2, Sarah A Strobino1
1Frontier Science Foundation, Amherst, NY.
Introduction:
The Stanford HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation algorithm has changed substantially over its lifetime. In many studies, the algorithm version used is not specified. It is easy to assume that results across versions are comparable, but the effects of version changes on resistance calls are unknown. We evaluate these effects for 20 antiretroviral drugs.
Methods:
We calculated resistance interpretations for the same 5993 HIV-1 sequences, from participants in AIDS Clinical Trials Group studies, under 14 versions of the Stanford algorithm from 2002 to 2017. Trends over time were assessed using repeated-measures logistic regression. Changes in rule structure and scoring were examined.
Results:
For most drugs, the proportion of high-level resistance calls on the same sequences was greater using more recent algorithm versions; 16/20 drugs showed significant upward trends. Some drugs, especially tenofovir, had a substantial increase. Only darunavir had a decrease. Algorithm changes impacted calls for subtype C more than B. For intermediate and high-level resistance combined, effects were weaker and more varied. Over time, rules in the Stanford algorithm have become more complex and contain more subrules. The types of rule changes responsible for trends varied widely by drug.
Discussion:
Reporting the Stanford algorithm version used for resistance analysis is strongly recommended. Caution should be used when comparing results between studies, unless the same version of the algorithm was used. Comparisons using different Stanford versions may be valid for drugs with few changes over time, but for most comparisons, version matters, and for some drugs, the impact is large.
Related Concept Videos
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Time-Domain Interpretation of PD Control
Consider the example of control of motor torque. Initially, a positive...
Time and frequency -Domain Interpretation of PI Control
Acting as a low-pass filter, the PI controller slows the system's response and extends settling times. This requires...
Time and frequency -Domain Interpretation of Phase-lead Control
The design of phase-lead control involves the strategic placement of poles and zeros to balance steady-state error and system...
Time and frequency -Domain Interpretation of Phase-lag Control
Phase-lag controllers do not place a pole at zero, but instead influence the steady-state error by amplifying any...
Trial and Error and Algorithm

