Association of hepatitis B virus infection with other sexually transmitted infections in homosexual men. Omega Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study determined the prevalence and factors associated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among men who have sex with men. METHODS: At the baseline visit of an HIV study among men who have sex with men, we asked about HBV vaccination status and tested for HBV markers. RESULTS: Of 625 subjects, 48% had received at least 1 dose of HBV vaccine. Of 328 unvaccinated men, 41% had 1 or more HBV markers. HBV prevalence increased markedly with age and was associated with many sexual and drug-related behaviors. In a multivariate model, 7 variables were independently associated with HBV infection: ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases (odds ratio [OR] = 10.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.6, 54); injection drug use (OR = 5.2; 95% CI = 1.2, 26); gonorrhea or chlamydia (OR = 4.0; 95% CI = 1.9, 8.9); sexual partner with HIV/AIDS (OR = 3.6; 95% CI = 1.8, 7.1); 50 or more casual partners (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 1.6, 7.1); received money for sex (OR = 3.0; 95% CI = 1.2, 7.8); and 20 or more regular partners (OR = 2.5; 95% CI = 1.1, 6.1). CONCLUSIONS: In Montreal, men who have sex with men are at risk for HBV infection, but a substantial proportion remain unvaccinated; new strategies are required to improve coverage. Men who have sex with men and who have a sexually transmitted infection, especially a genito-ulcerative infection, appear to be at particularly high risk for HBV infection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".