A Survey on the Usage of Supplements in Canadian Patients Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the usage, knowledge and attitudes of Patients Living with HIV with respect to supplements. A questionnaire was mailed to people living with HIV via HIV/AIDS organizations in Ontario and distributed to those attending the HIV-clinic of the University Health Network. The survey was completed by 312 subjects (95 female, 207 male). Self-rated health status was considered fair/good in 77.5% and excellent in 15.4% of participants. Vitamin/mineral supplement was used by 75.6%. Main reasons to take supplements were to: prolong life (56.1%); treat HIV-related conditions (19.9%); increase energy level (42.6%) and to boost immunity (36.5%). Among participants, 54.2% were somewhat familiar with supplements, 44.7% trusted the information on the labels and 28.2% felt that if a supplement is available for sale, it is safe. Supplements were mostly purchased at pharmacies (45.5%) and health food stores (30.1%). Only 25.9% and 27.9% of participants discussed their use of supplements with their HIV or family doctor respectively. Supplements are frequently used by people living with HIV without consulting their doctors. Current research has not shown a clear benefit from micronutrient supplementation and with the possible potential drug interactions, people living with HIV will need nutrition education regarding supplement usage and should report their use to their physicians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".