Missed opportunities for identifying primary HIV within genitourinary medical/HIV services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the ability of three genitourinary medical centres to clinically identify primary HIV infection (PHI). Cases of recently acquired HIV infection, identified using the Health Protection Agency (HPA) avidity assay on all HIV diagnoses from January to August 2009, were investigated by case-note review. Sixty-four individuals were identified as PHI using the HPA avidity assay. Of 64 individuals, 31 (48%) were identified clinically. Imperial College identified 8/26 (31%), Guys and St Thomas' 15/27 (56%) and Brighton 8/11 (73%). Clinical suspicion of PHI was associated with reported unprotected anal intercourse (P = 0.017), seroconversion symptoms (P = 0.0004), a negative HIV test within six months (P = 0.024) and avidity assay result availability (P = 0.0169). Seventy percent of PHI cases missed had a documented risk factor. Thirty-five percent of those clinically identified with PHI were documented as informed of the associated enhanced infectivity. Suspicion of PHI was low despite documented risk factors and recent HIV-negative antibody tests. Counselling to prevent onward transmission was suboptimal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".