Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors of the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics have selected the following abstracts of articles published in The Cochrane Library, because of their particular interest to parcticing specialists in obstetrics and gynecology in all areas of the world. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464–780X). From the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008 Issue 2. Copyright © 2008. The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Abstinence-plus programs for preventing HIV infection in high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Underhill K, Montgomery P, Operario O. Abstinence-plus programs for preventing HIV infection in high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD007006. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007006. Summary Abstinence-plus programs for preventing HIV infection in high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Abstinence-plus programs are widespread interventions that primarily target young people. On the premise that sexual abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV, abstinence-plus interventions aim to prevent, stop, or decrease sexual activity; however, programs also promote condom use and other safer-sex strategies as alternatives for sexually active participants. Abstinence-plus programs differ from abstinence-only interventions, which promote abstinence as the exclusive means of HIV prevention without encouraging safer sex. This review included 39 randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing abstinence-plus programs to various control groups (e.g. “usual care,” no intervention). Although we conducted an extensive international search for trials, all included studies were conducted among youth in the US, Canada, and the Bahamas (total baseline enrolment = 37724 participants). The included programs took place in schools, community centers, and healthcare facilities. We did not conduct a meta-analysis because of missing data and variation in program designs. Using various control groups, 24 of 39 evaluations showed a significantly protective intervention effect on at least one biological or behavioral outcome at short-term, medium-term, or long-term follow-up. Eight trials found no evidence that abstinence-plus programs affect self-reported sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence and limited evidence that programs have a protective effect on self-reported pregnancy incidence. Results for behavioral outcomes were inconsistent across studies. Findings in almost every trial assessing HIV-related knowledge favored the intervention group over controls. No harms were observed for any outcome, including incidence and frequency of sexual activity. Limitations for this review include underreporting of relevant outcomes, reliance on program participants to report their behaviors accurately, and methodological weaknesses in the trials.
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 | 0.020 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.166 | 0.038 |
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".