MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Poor adherence to HIV monitoring and treatment guidelines for HIV‐infected injection drug users

2008· article· en· W2073602571 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Evan Wood, Thomas Kerr, R Zhang, Silvia Guillemi, Anita Palepu, Robert S. Hogg, JSG Montaner

Bibliographic record

VenueHIV Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalHeroinOdds ratioInternal medicineMethadoneProspective cohort studyCohort studyMethadone maintenanceDrugPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: There is growing concern about access to HIV/AIDS care among injection drug users (IDUs). We examined rates of CD4 cell count monitoring and correlates among HIV-infected IDUs. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study of 460 community-recruited HIV-infected IDUs was situated in a Canadian city where all medical care is provided free of charge. Over a median follow-up period of 76 months, we evaluated factors associated with CD4 cell count monitoring through a linkage with a centralized CD4 registry. RESULTS: Overall, <5% of IDUs had CD4 monitoring consistent with local therapeutic guidelines. In multivariate analyses, after adjustment for being on antiretroviral therapy [odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84-2.70, P<0.001] female gender (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57-0.89, P=0.003), non-White ethnicity (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94, P=0.014), use of methadone maintenance therapy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.94, P<0.001) and daily heroin use (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.85, P<0.001) were independently associated with CD4 monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to improve CD4 surveillance among IDUs are critically important, particularly for female and non-White IDUs. Expanded treatment for heroin dependence appears to have the greatest potential for improved care.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHIV MedicineSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207