A pilot clustered randomized control trial evaluating the efficacy of a network-based HIV peer-education intervention targeting men who have sex with men in Hong Kong, China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV is a serious health threat among men who have sex with men (MSM). A 2-month pilot network-based peer intervention was conducted among Chinese MSM in Hong Kong. Eight MSM peer educators were randomized into the Intervention or the Control Groups and recruited 36 and 33 peers to join the program, respectively. The educators of the Intervention Group delivered standardized and theory-based preventive messages to their peers via daily social interactions. The Control Group received education materials. Baseline between-group differences were non-significant. At post-intervention, intervened participants were more likely than controlled participants to intend to use condoms consistently during anal sex with men in the next 6 months [94.4% versus 60.6%; Relative Risk (RR): 1.56 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.17, 2.08)] and to perceive behavioral control over taking up voluntary HIV testing and counseling [97.2% versus 72.7%; RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.66)]. Large scale randomized trials are warranted.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it