MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983305470 · doi:10.1258/095646203322301059

Symptomatic primary HIV infection or risk experiences? Circumstances surrounding HIV testing and diagnosis among recent seroconverters

2003· article· en· W1983305470 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ann N. Burchell, Liviana Calzavara, Nancy Ramuscak, Ted Myers, Carol Major, Anita Rachlis, Kevin Gough, Janet Raboud, Robert S. Remis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreMinistry of Health and Long Term CareUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationEpidemiologyInternal medicineDemographyImmunologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective was to understand the circumstances surrounding HIV testing among recent HIV seroconverters (n=80) compared to HIV-negative controls (n=106) in Ontario, Canada using self-reported interview data. Diagnosis of symptomatic primary HIV infection (SPHI) was defined as diagnosis by the participant's physician. Testing in response to symptoms was reported by 42% of seroconverters vs 12% of controls. More controls than seroconverters tested in response to risk behaviour (70% vs 50%) or from a desire to know their status (34% vs 12%). Among seroconverters, 76% reported 'flu-like' illness during the time period of infection, 66% had symptoms consistent with SPHI, and 35% reported a physician's diagnosis of SPHI. Compared to seroconverters with undiagnosed SPHI, more of those diagnosed with SPHI had rash (odds ratio=4.5). SPHI plays a significant role in HIV testing and subsequent early diagnosis in this population. More seroconversions could be diagnosed with better patient and physician awareness of its symptoms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207