Sex Differences in Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality among HIV-Infected Adults on Antiretroviral Therapy in Europe, Canada and the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Here, we aimed to evaluate regional differences in all-cause, AIDS- and non-AIDS-related mortality in HIV-positive men and women started on combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in Europe, Canada and the US. METHODS: The ART Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC) combines 19 cohorts of individuals started on cART in Europe and North America (NA). We analysed patients infected via injecting drug use (IDU) or heterosexual sex using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 32,443 European (45.9% women), 1,162 (32.5% women) Canadian and 2,721 (15.5% women) US patients were included. In Europe and NA, women were younger, more likely to have acquired HIV heterosexually, be AIDS-free and have higher CD4(+) T-cell counts and lower HIV-1 RNA at baseline. European women had lower rates of all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% CI 0.68, 0.84) and non-AIDS mortality (0.67; 0.57, 0.78) than men, but AIDS-mortality rates were similar (0.90; 0.75, 1.09). Women had lower mortality due to non-AIDS infections (0.6 versus 1.3 per 1,000 person-years), liver diseases (0.4 versus 1.7), non-AIDS malignancies (0.6 versus 2.0) and cardiovascular diseases (0.6 versus 1.0). Between-sex differences in all-cause mortality were larger in heterosexuals (0.70; 0.61, 0.80) than in IDU (0.88; 0.73, 1.05; interaction P-value =0.043). No sex differences in all-cause mortality were found in Canada (hazard ratio women 1.13; 0.82, 1.56) or US (hazard ratio women 1.12; 0.79, 1.58). CONCLUSIONS: The increasing importance of non-AIDS mortality is leading to emergent sex differences among HIV-positive patients in Europe, as in the general population. Despite the better clinical characteristics at cART initiation, women in NA had similar mortality to men.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".