Are Low- and Middle-Income Countries Repeating Mistakes Made by High-Income Countries in the Control of HIV for Men who have Sex with Men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men who have sex with men (MSM) have been represented disproportionately in the HIV epidemic in high income countries since the first HIV/AIDS cases were reported in MSM in 1981. Among all vulnerable HIV populations, MSM account for the preponderance of prevalent AIDS cases in Western Europe [1,2]. Similarly, the largest numbers of persons with newly diagnosed HIV infections (range 45%–65%) are MSM in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand [3–7]. In contrast, in many low- and middle-income country (LMICs) HIV epidemics were driven by injection drug use (IDU), heterosexual sex, and/or contaminated blood collection and transfusion [8,9]. In recent years, rapid increases in the HIV epidemic among MSM have been observed LMICs in Asia [10], Africa [11], South America [12] and Eastern Europe and Central Asia [13]. For example, MSM account for nearly one third of prevalent AIDS cases in Thailand [14] and Brazil [15], and 30 % – 75 % of estimated new HIV infections in various parts of Laos and China [16,17]. A small number of epidemiologic studies have also shown high incidence (6.8/100 person-years)
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 | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".