MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074475005 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.1.11

Review: HIV risk reduction interventions reduce some HIV risk behaviours in adolescents

2004· letter· en· W2074475005 on OpenAlexaff
Susan Askin

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb of scienceHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicinePsychological interventionGynecologyPediatricsInternal medicineImmunologyPsychiatryMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Johnson BT, Carey MP, Marsh KL, et al . Interventions to reduce sexual risk for the human immunodeficiency virus in adolescents, 1985–2000: a research synthesis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:381–8.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Do HIV risk reduction interventions reduce adolescent risk behaviours for HIV? ### ![Graphic][5] Data sources: AIDSLINE, CINAHL, Dissertations Abstracts Online, ERIC, Medline, and PsycINFO up to December 2000; hand searches of conference proceedings and recent issues of relevant journals; bibliographies of identified studies; and individual researchers. ### ![Graphic][6] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies with rigorous controls that evaluated intensive educational, psychosocial, or behavioural interventions advocating sexual risk reduction for HIV prevention for pre-college adolescents and included behavioural measures relevant to … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BPediatrics%2Band%2BAdolescent%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BPediatr%2BAdolesc%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DJohnson%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%2BT.%26rft.volume%253D157%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D381%26rft.epage%253D388%26rft.atitle%253DInterventions%2Bto%2BReduce%2BSexual%2BRisk%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BHuman%2BImmunodeficiency%2BVirus%2Bin%2BAdolescents%252C%2B1985-2000%253A%2BA%2BResearch%2BSynthesis%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpedi.157.4.381%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12695235%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpedi.157.4.381&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12695235&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F1%2F11.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182096100014&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207