MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010168447 · doi:10.1080/09540121.2014.986051

Inclusion of trans women in pre-exposure prophylaxis trials: a review

2014· review· en· W2010168447 on OpenAlex
Daniel J. Escudero, Thomas Kerr, Don Operario, M. Eugenia Socías, Omar Sued, Brandon D. L. Marshall

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Care · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsAIDS VancouverUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineInclusion (mineral)Pre-exposure prophylaxisPopulationClinical trialFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Internal medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthMen who have sex with men

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trans women are at high risk of HIV infection. We conducted a review to determine the extent to which trans women were eligible for inclusion in and enrolled into pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) efficacy trials. Out of seven trials analyzing PrEP efficacy, we found that trans women comprised only 1.2% of one trial and 0.2% of total trial enrollments. Although an additional PrEP trial to determine efficacy among trans women may not be warranted, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of PrEP in this marginalized population, through observational and feasibility studies. These studies should focus on unique barriers that trans women may experience while obtaining access to PrEP, such as gender discrimination, transphobia, and violence.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.371 · 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