P3.217 International Comparison of Recent Trends in the Rates of HIV Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background After a rise in the early 2000s in the number of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in New Zealand, also witnessed in many developed countries, in 2011 the number dropped by 34% compared to 2010. To assess relative progress on control we compare trends in HIV diagnosis rates among MSM in developed countries with similarly mature epidemics. Methods We obtained data on annual HIV diagnoses among MSM between 2003–2011 from 17 developed countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, UK, US). We reallocated those with unknown means of infection according to the countries’ pattern of known causes, and used countries’ adjustment for delayed reporting where available. The diagnosis rate was derived using the population of men aged 15–64. Results New Zealand has low rates compared to most countries of Western Europe, North America and Australia, and are comparable with those of Scandinavia All counties except New Zealand, Iceland and Canada, experienced a slight overall rise in diagnosis rates in the period 2003–2011 Over the past four years there has been a: Slight trend upwards in UK, Belgium, France, Australia, Ireland No clear trend in Spain, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway Slight trend downwards in New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and possibly Iceland Clear trend downwards in Switzerland. Conclusions New Zealand has a low rate of HIV diagnoses, relative to many other developed countries. Our drop in 2011 HIV is encouraging but not unique. Limitations of this study are that the data are of diagnosis not infection rates, are influenced by patterns of testing, immigration and emigration, and dual modes of transmission, and the proportion who are MSM may vary between countries. Factors relating to recent trends should be explored.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.004 |
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".