Nonnegligible Increasing Temporal Trends in Unprotected Anal Intercourse Among Men Who Have Sexual Relations With Other Men in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine temporal trends in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) among men who have sex with other men (MSM) participating in the Omega Cohort Study, 1997-2003. METHODS: The Omega Cohort Study was a longitudinal study of HIV-negative MSM aged 16 years or older and living in Montreal. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires and interviews every 6 months. Trend analysis using the generalized estimating equation was done for length of cohort membership (visits) and by calendar time for all visits, per type of sexual partner. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to measure the odds of increasing UAI per 6-month period. RESULTS: Among subjects who were followed for at least 4 years, UAI increased with regular seroconcordant partners (OR, 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.09), and any type of partner (OR, 1.05, 95% CI 1.03- 1.07). There was a nonnegligible increase in UAI with casual partners (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09). For the analysis by calendar time, there were increases in UAI between with regular seroconcordant partners (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05) and any type of partner (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). There were nonnegligible increases in UAI with casual partners (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05) and with any type of partner except regular seroconcordant partner from 15.7% to 18.8% (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: There was a nonnegligible and consistent increase in UAI among Omega participants, between 1997 and 2003. Continuous trend analysis is important because it allows us to closely follow UAI and to implement intervention strategies that may help to stop or reduce the present trend.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".