MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035304784 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030438

Adherence to HAART: A Systematic Review of Developed and Developing Nation Patient-Reported Barriers and Facilitators

2006· review· en· W2035304784 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward J. Mills, Jean B. Nachega, David R. Bangsberg, Sonal Singh, Beth Rachlis, Ping Wu, Kumanan Wilson, Iain Buchan, Christopher Gill, Curtis Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Society for International HealthCanadian College of Naturopathic MedicineAIDS VancouverUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesOntario HIV Treatment NetworkDoris Duke Charitable Foundation
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineQualitative researchDeveloping countryFamily medicineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEPillCochrane LibraryPsychological interventionMeta-analysisNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations823
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Medicine→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→