Stress and increased HIV infection risk among gay and bisexual men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our principal objective was to determine whether psychosocial stress raises the risk of HIV infection among gay and bisexual men. If so, we also aimed to evaluate the evidence for the underlying mechanism, specifically whether stress has an intermediate effect on sexual risk behaviour or an independent, cofactor effect. METHODS: Participants were recruited through the provincial HIV diagnostic laboratory, physicians and community organizations in Ontario, Canada, 1998-2006. Confirmed recent seroconverters (n = 123 cases) were asked about stressful life events and behaviour during the likely period of infection (median 8, range 3-33 months). HIV-negative controls (n = 240) were asked about an equivalent time period. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Cases reported more stressful life events (median = 3, 33% 5 or more) than controls (median = 2, 20% 5 or more). Compared to men who reported no events, risk of HIV infection increased with the number of events, to a 2.5-fold increase in risk among men reporting 5 or more (95% CI 1.3, 4.7). The association weakened when adjusted for sexual risk behaviour (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.82, 3.6) and when restricted to men who engaged in unprotected receptive anal sex with an HIV-positive or status unknown partner (OR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.50, 3.6). CONCLUSIONS: Gay and bisexual men experiencing stressful life events were at increased risk of HIV infection. This effect was mediated by sexual risk behaviour. We recommend that coping strategies in response to stress be considered in prevention research and health policy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".