The Association Between Food Insecurity and Mortality Among HIV-Infected Individuals on HAART
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is increasingly recognized as a barrier to optimal treatment outcomes, but there is little data on this issue. We assessed associations between food insecurity and mortality among HIV-infected antiretroviral therapy-treated individuals in Vancouver, British Columbia, and whether body max index (BMI) modified associations. METHODS: Individuals were recruited from the British Columbia HIV/AIDS drug treatment program in 1998 and 1999 and were followed until June 2007 for outcomes. Food insecurity was measured with the Radimer/Cornell questionnaire. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine associations between food insecurity, BMI, and nonaccidental deaths when controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Among 1119 participants, 536 (48%) were categorized as food insecure and 160 (14%) were categorized as underweight (BMI < 18.5). After a median follow-up time of 8.2 years, 153 individuals (14%) had died from nonaccidental deaths. After controlling for adherence, CD4 counts, and socioeconomic variables, people who were food insecure and underweight were nearly 2 times more likely to die (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.94, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 3.40) compared with people who were not food insecure or underweight. There was also a trend toward increased risk of mortality among people who were food insecure and not underweight (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.40, 95% confidence interval = 0.91 to 2.05). In contrast, people who were underweight but food secure were not more likely to die. CONCLUSIONS: Food insecurity is a risk factor for mortality among antiretroviral therapy-treated individuals in British Columbia, particularly among individuals who are underweight. Innovative approaches to address food insecurity should be incorporated into HIV treatment programs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".