Successful Techniques for Retaining a Cohort of Infants and Children Born to HIV-Infected Women: the Prospective P2C2 HIV Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retaining subjects from disadvantaged populations in long-term studies is necessary to obtain high-quality data. This article presents cumulative retention rates from a 5-year prospective cohort study, the Pediatric Pulmonary and Cardiovascular Complications of Vertically Transmitted HIV Infection study. It also presents results of a cross-sectional qualitative survey about factors that induced caregivers to stay in the study. Although the repeated study visits were long and uncomfortable, cumulative retention among the 298 HIV-infected children was 80%. Incentives considered important by the caregivers included phone contact with nurse coordinators, nurse coordinators accompanying the caregiver and child during visits, phone reminders for appointments, help with scheduling, meals and transportation, access to health care, and relationships with staff. Thus, the high follow-up rate was in part due to nurses' efforts to reduce the study's burden on the families, provide tangible and intangible incentives, and establish personal relationships with families.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".