MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044321160 · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2010.02.2256

Should microbicides be controlled by women or by physicians?

2010· review· en· W2044321160 on OpenAlexaff
Jocelyne Piret, Michel G. Bergeron

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrobicides for sexually transmitted diseasesMedicineIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthHealth servicesPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2007, nearly 7000 new cases of HIV infection occurred each day. There is a constant increase in the proportion of women newly infected with HIV in the global population; this increase is particularly high in some areas of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa. Microbicides are products that are being developed to empower women against HIV. First- and second-generation microbicides are broad-spectrum products that include surface active agents, vaginal defense enhancers, and blocking agents. Third-generation microbicides are HIV-specific and include replication and entry inhibitors formulated as gels or as vaginal rings. However, there is a concern that antiretroviral-based microbicides could lead to drug resistance if they are used by HIV-positive women who are unaware of their HIV status. To reach the highest number of women possible, microbicides should be available over-the-counter, which might not be the case with antiretroviral-based formulations. In contrast, non-antiretroviral-based microbicides will have the advantage of being initiated and controlled by women themselves and they will not jeopardize the use of life-saving drugs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207