Male sex and the risk of mortality among individuals enrolled in antiretroviral therapy programs in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV/AIDS has historically had a sex and gender-focused approach to prevention and care. Some evidence suggests that HIV-positive men have worse treatment outcomes than their women counterparts in Africa. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of sex on the risk of death among participants enrolled in antiretroviral therapy (ART) programs in Africa since the rapid scale-up of ART. We included all cohort studies evaluating the effect of sex (male, female) on the risk of death among participants enrolled in regional and national ART programs in Africa. We identified these studies by searching MedLine, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We used a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects method to pool the proportions of men receiving ART and the hazard ratios for death by sex. RESULTS: Twenty-three cohort studies, including 216 008 participants (79 892 men) contributed to our analysis. The pooled proportion of men receiving ART was 35% [95% confidence interval (CI): 33-38%]. The pooled hazard ratio estimate indicated a significant increase in the risk of death for men when compared to women [hazard ratio: 1.37 (95% CI: 1.28-1.47)]. This was consistent across sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of men enrolled in ART programs in Africa is lower than women. Additionally, there is an increased risk of death for men enrolled in ART programs. Solutions that aid in reducing these sex inequities are needed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".