Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta‐analysis of randomized trials involving 11 050 men<sup>*</sup>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Observational studies and a small collection of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that male circumcision may significantly reduce HIV transmission between sero-discordant contacts. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and World Health Organization have recently announced recommendations to scale up male circumcision in countries with generalized epidemics and low levels of male circumcision. However, no meta-analysis has been conducted to determine the effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of medical literature, and included any RCTs assessing male circumcision to prevent heterosexually acquired HIV infection among males. We used the DerSimonian-Laird random effects method to pool study outcomes. We calculated the relative risk (RR), risk difference, number needed to treat (NNT) and I(2), all with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We identified three RCTs that met our inclusion criteria, involving a total of 11 050 men. The pooled RR was 0.44 (95% CI 0.33-0.60, P<0.0001, I(2)=0%, 95% CI 0-35%). The risk difference was 0.014 (95% CI 0.07-0.21), yielding a NNT of 72 (95% CI 50-143). CONCLUSIONS: Male circumcision is an effective strategy for reducing new male HIV infections. Its impact on a population level will require consistently safe sexual practices to maintain the protective benefit.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it