Oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis reduces the risk of HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al.; iPrEx Study Team. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2587–99.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Additional interventions to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic are needed urgently. Prevention interventions using antiretroviral agents to prevent sexually acquired HIV are being studied in humans. Current evidence suggests that, by reducing viral load to undetectable level, combination antiretroviral therapy used to treat and extend the life of HIV-infected individuals may also reduce their infectivity thereby reducing the risk of transmission to their uninfected partners.1 In 2010, a topical antiretroviral-based vaginal microbicide, Tenofovir 1% gel, was shown to reduce HIV acquisition among South African women.2 The iPrEX study is the first multicentre double-blinded randomised trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs used as oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infections. The … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DGrant%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D363%26rft.issue%253D27%26rft.spage%253D2587%26rft.epage%253D2599%26rft.atitle%253DPreexposure%2Bchemoprophylaxis%2Bfor%2BHIV%2Bprevention%2Bin%2Bmen%2Bwho%2Bhave%2Bsex%2Bwith%2Bmen.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1011205%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21091279%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1011205&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21091279&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F5%2F146.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285763700004&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".