MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968981867 · doi:10.1007/s10461-012-0347-2

HIV Test Avoidance Among People Who Inject Drugs in Thailand

2012· article· en· W1968981867 on OpenAlexafffund
Lianping Ti, Kanna Hayashi, Karyn Kaplan, Paisan Suwannawong, Evan Wood, Julio Montaner, Thomas Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS and Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersCHIST-ERAInternational AIDS SocietyCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Health, British ColumbiaChulalongkorn UniversityPublic Health AgencyNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research ChairsProvidence Health CareSimon Fraser UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaU.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefMichael Smith Health Research BCBill and Melinda Gates FoundationViiV HealthcareUniversity of British ColumbiaWorld Health OrganizationNational Institute on Drug AbuseBristol-Myers SquibbGilead Sciences
KeywordsHealth psychologyMedicinePsychological interventionPublic healthSyringeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Test (biology)Stigma (botany)Environmental healthPsychiatryFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case identification is a key component of HIV prevention efforts; yet rates of HIV testing remain low in some settings. We explored factors associated with HIV test avoidance among people who inject drugs (IDU) in Thailand. Between July and October 2011, 350 Thai IDU participated in the study. In bivariate analyses, male gender, high intensity drug use, syringe sharing, increased police presence, and being refused healthcare services were positively associated with HIV test avoidance, while ever receiving a hepatitis C test was negatively associated. Our findings highlight the need for interventions to reduce stigma in this setting.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS and BehaviorSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207