Asking the right questions: developing evidence-based strategies for treating HIV in women and children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued formal revisions of its guidelines on the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy for HIV. The new guidelines greatly expand eligibility for treatment of adults and children, as well as for pregnant women seeking prophylaxis for vertical HIV transmission. WHO's new recommendations bring the guidelines closer to practices in developed countries, and its shift to earlier treatment alone will increase the number of treatment-eligible people by 50% or more.Scaling up access to HIV treatment is revealing important gaps in our understanding of how best to provide for all those in need. This knowledge gap is especially significant in developing countries, where women and children comprise a majority of those living with HIV infection. Given the magnitude and significance of these populations, the International AIDS Society, through its Industry Liaison Forum, prioritized HIV treatment and prophylaxis of women and children. In March 2010, the International AIDS Society and 15 partners launched a Consensus Statement outlining priority areas in which a relative lack of knowledge impedes delivery of optimal prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) and treatment to women and children.The Consensus Statement, "Asking the Right Questions: Advancing an HIV Research Agenda for Women and Children", makes a special appeal for a more gender-sensitive approach to HIV research at all stages, from conception to design and implementation. It particularly emphasizes research to enhance the understanding of sex-based differences and paediatric needs in treatment uptake and response. In addition to clinical issues, the statement focuses on programmatic research that facilitates access and adherence to antiretroviral regimens. Better coordination of HIV management with sexual and reproductive healthcare delivery is one such approach.We discuss here our knowledge gaps concerning effective, safe PMTCT and treatment for women and children in light of the expansion envisioned by WHO's revised guidelines. The guideline's new goals present an opportunity for advancing the women and children's agenda outlined in the Consensus Statement.
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 | 0.238 | 0.458 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".