MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1807980043 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140835

HIV Prevalence Correlates with High-Risk Sexual Behavior in Ethiopia's Regions

2015· article· en· W1807980043 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Kenyon, Achilleas Tsoumanis, Ilan S. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemographyCondomMedicinePsychological interventionPopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Incidence (geometry)PrevalenceSexual behaviorCross-sectional studyEnvironmental healthImmunologySyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV prevalence varies between 0.9 and 6.5% in Ethiopia's eleven regions. Little has been published examining the reasons for this variation. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between HIV prevalence by region and a range of risk factors in the 2005 and 2011 Ethiopian Demographic Health Surveys. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the relationship between HIV prevalence and each variable. RESULTS: There was a strong association between HIV prevalence and three markers of sexual risk: mean lifetime number of partners (men: r = 0.87; P < 0.001; women: r = 0.60; P = 0.05); reporting sex with a non-married, non-cohabiting partner (men: r = 0.92; P < 0.001, women r = 0.93; P < 0.001); and premarital sex. Condom usage and HIV testing were positively associated with HIV prevalence, while the prevalence of circumcision, polygamy, age at sexual debut and male migration were not associated with HIV prevalence. CONCLUSION: Variation in sexual behavior may contribute to the large variations in HIV prevalence by region in Ethiopia. Population-level interventions to reduce risky sexual behavior in high HIV incidence regions should be considered.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207