Examining the evidence on the causal effect of HAART on transmission of HIV using the Bradford Hill criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, evidence has accumulated regarding the ability of HAART to prevent HIV transmission. Early supportive evidence was derived from observational, ecological and population-based studies. More recently, a randomized clinical trial showed that immediate use of HAART led to a 96% decrease in HIV transmission events within HIV serodiscordant heterosexual couples. However, the generalizability of the effect of HAART, and the population-level impact on HIV transmission continues to generate substantial debate. We, therefore, conducted a review of the evidence regarding the preventive effect of HAART on HIV transmission within the context of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. Taken together, we find the accumulated evidence supporting HIV treatment as prevention meets each of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. We conclude that the opportunity cost of inaction while waiting for additional evidence on the generalizability of effect in other risk groups is too high. Efforts should be redoubled to mobilize the financial capital and political will to optimize implementation of HIV Treatment as Prevention strategies on a wide scale.
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 | 0.030 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".