MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ethnic differences in stage of presentation of adults newly diagnosed with HIV‐1 infection in south London

2005· article· en· W2059840157 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupHIV diagnosisPopulationMedical recordDemographyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Stage (stratigraphy)Viral loadPediatricsAntiretroviral therapyFamily medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether there were ethnic differences in demographic characteristics, the stage at HIV diagnosis and reasons for and location of HIV testing between 1998 and 2000 in a large ethnically diverse HIV-1-infected clinic population in south London in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: A retrospective review was carried out of all persons >18 years old attending King's College Hospital with a first positive HIV-1 test between 1 January 1998 and 31 October 2000, and of a random sample of patients attending St Thomas' hospital with a first positive HIV-1 test in the same period. Demographic data, details of reasons for and site of HIV test, clinical stage, CD4 lymphocyte count and HIV-1 viral load at HIV diagnosis were abstracted from the local database and medical records. Comparisons were made according to ethnic group (white, black African and black Caribbean) and over time (1998, 1999 and 2000). RESULTS: Of the 494 patients with new HIV-1 diagnoses between January 1998 and December 2000, 179 (36.2%) were white, 270 (54.7%) were black African and 45 (9.1%) were black Caribbean. There were significant differences across the ethnic groups in HIV risk group, reasons for and site of HIV testing, and clinical and CD4 stage at diagnosis. Among whites, 72.6% were men who had sex with men, 3.4% injecting drug users and 21.2% heterosexuals, compared to 2.2%, 0.4% and 93.3% among black Africans, and 28.9%, 0% and 68.9% among black Caribbeans (P<0.001). Black Africans were more likely to present with an AIDS diagnosis (21.3%) and a lower CD4 cell count [223 cells/microL; interquartile range (IQR) 88-348] compared to both whites (9.9%; 358 cells/microL; IQR 151-508) and black Caribbeans (17.9%; 294 cells/microL; IQR 113-380), who were intermediate between whites and black Africans in their stage of presentation. There was a statistically nonsignificant trend with time, between 1998 and 2000, towards earlier diagnosis based on the CD4 cell count in whites (323 and 403 cells/microL) and black Caribbeans (232 and 333 cells/microL), but a later diagnosis in black Africans (233 and 175 cells/microL). The majority of black Africans were HIV-tested as a result of suggestive symptoms or antenatal screening (58.4%) rather than because of perceived risk (40.5%), in contrast to the situation in whites (24.1% vs. 71.7%, respectively) or black Caribbeans (34.5% vs. 65.5%, respectively) (P<0.001). We found no significant differences across ethnic groups in age, HIV-1 viral load or year of HIV diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Black Africans continue to present with more advanced HIV disease than whites or black Caribbeans, with no evidence of any trend towards earlier diagnosis. Future educational campaigns designed to promote the uptake of HIV testing among black Africans and black Caribbeans will need to address the multiple barriers to testing, including misperception of risk, stigma and ready access to testing.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.309 · 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