Men who have sex with men and women in Bangalore, South India, and potential impact on the HIV epidemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify differences in patterns of sexual behaviour among men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) compared with men who have sex with men only (MSMO), and to examine the extent to which bisexual behaviour may act as a bridge for introducing HIV infection into the general population. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in Bangalore city in 2006, which sampled men seeking sex with men in public places and hammams (bath houses where transgender individuals sell sex to men). RESULTS: Among a sample of 357 men reporting same-sex behaviour; 41% also reported sex with a woman in the past year and 14% were currently married to a woman, only two of whom had informed their wives about having sex with men. Condom use was very inconsistent with all male partners, while 98% reported unprotected vaginal sex with their wives. MSMW reported lower rates of risky behaviour with other men than MSMO: fewer reported selling sex (17% vs 58%), or receptive anal sex with known (28% vs 70%) or unknown (30% vs 59%) non-commercial partners. CONCLUSION: Bisexual behaviour was common among men seeking sex with men sampled in this survey. Although MSMW reported lower rates of risky sexual behaviour with male partners than MSMO, inconsistent condom use with both male and female partners indicates a potential means of HIV transmission into the general population. HIV prevention programmes and services should reach bisexual men who potentially expose their male and female partners to HIV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".