Inadequacies in antiretroviral therapy use among Aboriginal and other Canadian populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We undertook this study to provide a profile of Aboriginal people initiating antiretroviral therapy and their response to treatment. Aboriginal peoples were identified through self-report. Baseline socio-demographics and risk factors were compared between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants as were baseline factors associated with two consecutive plasma viral load measures below 500 copies/ml using contingency table analysis. Multivariate survival analysis of the prognostic factors associated with time to two consecutive plasma viral load measures below 500 copies/ml among eligible participants was undertaken to characterize response to antiretroviral therapy. There were 892 participants with available data for this analysis, of those 146 (16%) self-identified as Aboriginal. Aboriginal participants were more likely to be female (p < or = 0.001), have lower baseline plasma viral loads (p = 0.010), be co-infected with HCV (p < 0.001), live in unstable housing (p < or = 0.001), and report an income of >10K CDN (p < or = 0.001) per annum. Aboriginal people were less likely to report men who have sex with men (p < or = 0.001) and more likely to report injection drug use (p < or = 0.001) as a risk factor for HIV infection. Aboriginal participants were more likely to receive double versus triple combination antiretroviral therapy (p = 0.002), be less adherent in the first year on therapy (p = 0.001) and to have a physician less experienced with treating HIV (p < or = 0.001). When these factors were controlled for, Aboriginal people treated with triple combination therapy were as likely to respond and suppress their viral load below 500 copies. In the era of HAART, our results indicate that Aboriginal people living with HIV/AIDS were less likely to receive optimal therapy. However, when Aboriginals did receive triple drug therapy they suppressed just as well as non-Aboriginals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".