MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Prognostic Model for HIV Seroconversion Among Injection Drug Users as a Tool for Stratification in Clinical Trials

2005· article· en· W1965188874 on OpenAlexaff
Cathérine Boileau, Julie Bruneau, H. Al-Nachawati, François Lamothe, Jean Vincelette

Bibliographic record

VenueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMedicineSeroconversionProportional hazards modelPopulationInternal medicineProspective cohort studyCohortCohort studyIncidence (geometry)Framingham Risk ScoreRelative riskDemographyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Confidence intervalImmunologyEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The main goal of this study was to construct a prognostic model for HIV seroconversion among injection drug users (IDUs) using easy-to-measure risk indicators. DESIGN: Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used for risk stratification in a heterogeneous population of IDUs with regards to HIV risk-taking behaviors. METHODS: Subjects were recruited in a prospective cohort of IDUs followed between September 1992 and October 2001. A total of 1602 men, seronegative at enrollment with at least 1 follow-up visit, were included in the analyses. Only variables that consistently predict HIV seroconversion in several settings were considered. The final model was used to assign a risk score for each participant. RESULTS: Three risk indicators were included in the risk score to predict HIV seroconversion: unstable housing, average cocaine injections per day, and having shared a syringe with a known HIV-positive partner. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were generated and risk score values stratified in 3 groups. HIV incidence rates per 100 person-years were as follows: 0.91 (95% CI, 0.55-1.52) for the low-risk group, 3.10 (95% CI, 2.49-3.84) for the moderate-risk group, and 7.82 (95% CI, 6.30-9.73) for the high-risk group (log-rank P value < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: If validated in other settings, this risk score may improve the prediction of outcome and allow more accurate stratification in clinical trials.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207