MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035254050 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003459

The Rise and Fall of HIV in High-Prevalence Countries: A Challenge for Mathematical Modeling

2014· review· en· W2035254050 on OpenAlexaff
Nico Nagelkerke, Paul Arora, Prabhat Jha, Brian Williams, Lyle R. McKinnon, Sake J. de Vlas

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Transmission (telecommunications)DemographySexual behaviorSexual transmissionSexual contactMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceImmunologyDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several countries with generalized, high-prevalence HIV epidemics, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, have experienced rapid declines in transmission. These HIV epidemics, often with rapid onsets, have generally been attributed to a combination of factors related to high-risk sexual behavior. The subsequent declines in these countries began prior to widespread therapy or implementation of any other major biomedical prevention. This change has been construed as evidence of behavior change, often on the basis of mathematical models, but direct evidence for behavior changes that would explain these declines is limited. Here, we look at the structure of current models and argue that the common "fixed risk per sexual contact" assumption favors the conclusion of substantial behavior changes. We argue that this assumption ignores reported non-linearities between exposure and risk. Taking this into account, we propose that some of the decline in HIV transmission may be part of the natural dynamics of the epidemic, and that several factors that have traditionally been ignored by modelers for lack of precise quantitative estimates may well hold the key to understanding epidemiologic trends.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207