MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1495011784

[Estimating the 2006 prevalence of HIV by gender and risk groups in Tijuana, Mexico].

2009· article· en· W1495011784 on OpenAlexaff
Esmeralda Íñiguez-Stevens, Kimberly C. Brouwer, Robert S. Hogg, Thomas L. Patterson, Remedios Lozada, Carlos Magis‐Rodríguez, John P. Elder, Rolando M. Viani, Steffanie A. Strathdee

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthDemographyGeographyMedicineGerontologySociologyFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the 2006 HIV prevalence among adults aged 15-49 from the general population and at-risk subgroups in Tijuana, Mexico. METHODS: Demographic data was obtained from the 2005 Mexican census and HIV prevalence data was obtained from reports in the literature. We developed a population-based HIV prevalence model for the overall population and stratified it by gender. Sensitivity analysis consisted of estimating standard errors in the weighted-average point prevalence and calculating partial derivatives of each parameter. RESULTS: HIV prevalence among adults was 0.54% (N = 4347) (range 0.22-0.86% [N = 1750-6944]). This suggests that 0.85% (range 0.39-1.31%) of men and 0.22% (0.04-0.40%) of women could have been HIV-infected in 2006. Men who have sex with men (MSM), followed by female sex workers who are injection drug users (FSW-IDU), FSW-non IDU, female IDU, and male IDU were the most at risk groups of infected individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The number of HIV-infected adults among at-risk subgroups in Tijuana is significant, highlighting the need to design tailored prevention interventions that focus on the specific needs of certain groups. According to our model, as many as 1 in 116 adults could potentially be HIV-infected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→