Canadian HIV Pregnancy Planning Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Four main clinical issues need to be considered for HIV-positive individuals and couples with respect to pregnancy planning and counselling: (1) pre-conceptional health; (2) transmission from mother to infant, which has been significantly reduced by combined antiretroviral therapy; (3) transmission between partners during conception, which requires different prevention and treatment strategies depending on the status and needs of those involved; and (4) management of infertility issues. The objective of the Canadian HIV Pregnancy Planning Guidelines is to provide clinical information and recommendations for health care providers to assist HIV-positive individuals and couples with their fertility and pregnancy planning decisions. These guidelines are evidence- and community-based and flexible, and they take into account diverse and intersecting local/population needs and the social determinants of health. OUTCOMES: Intended outcomes are (1) reduction of risk of vertical transmission and horizontal transmission of HIV, (2) improvement of maternal and infant health outcomes in the presence of HIV, (3) reduction of the stigma associated with pregnancy and HIV, and (4) increased access to pregnancy planning and fertility services. EVIDENCE: PubMed and Medline were searched for articles published in English or French to December 20, 2010, using the following terms: "HIV" and "pregnancy" or "pregnancy planning" or "fertility" or "reproduction" or "infertility" or "parenthood" or "insemination" or "artificial insemination" or "sperm washing" or "IVF" or "ICSI" or "IUI." Other search terms included "HIV" and 'horizontal transmission" or "sexual transmission" or "serodiscordant." The following conference databases were also searched: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, International AIDS Conference, International AIDS Society, Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, the Canadian Association of HIV/AIDS Research, and the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Research Conference. Finally, a hand search of key journals and conferences was performed, and references of retrieved articles were reviewed for additional citations. Subsequently, abstracts were categorized according to their primary topic (based on an outline of the guidelines) into table format with the following headings: author, title, study purpose, participants, results and general comments. Finally, experts in the field were consulted for their opinions as to whether any articles were missed. VALUES: The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations for practice were ranked according to the method described in that report (Table) and through use of the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument for the development of clinical guidelines. SPONSORS: The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, Women and HIV Research Program, Women's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Abbott Laboratories Canada, the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Canadian HIV Trials Network.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.013 |
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".