MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093872243 · doi:10.1089/apc.2013.0019

Gender Disparities in HIV Risk Behavior and Access to Health Care in St. Petersburg, Russia

2013· article· en· W2093872243 on OpenAlexafffund
Colins Vasquez, Dmitry Lioznov, Svetlana Nikolaenko, Sergey Yatsishin, Darya Lesnikova, David Cox, Jim Pankovich, Ron Rosenes, Wendy Wobeser, O. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Patient Care and STDs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityHIV Legal NetworkUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsMedicinePopulationDemographyResidenceTuberculosisSubstance abuseHepatitis CGerontologyEnvironmental healthImmunologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 40,000 HIV-infected individuals live in St Petersburg, Russia. Population characteristics and barriers to care are largely undefined. 152 consecutive patients receiving HIV care at two sites completed a questionnaire in Spring 2011. Rates of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, alcohol use, and rates of antiretroviral uptake were similar by gender. Males reported a higher history of injection drug use (80.3% vs. 48.7%; p<0.01) and tuberculosis infection (18.8% vs. 1.6%; p<0.01). Females were more likely to have had a child (63.3% vs. 31.5%; p<0.01) and be currently raising that child within their residence (49.3% vs. 15.3%; p<0.01). Unprotected sex (60.5% vs. 17.8%; p<0.01) and a history of sexually transmitted infection (37.7% vs. 20.3%; p=0.03) were more common in females. Females utilized social services more frequently (34.2% vs. 11.9%; p<0.01). There is a heavy burden of concurrent infectious disease, substance use and abuse, mental health illness, and need for social service support in this population. Important differences exist between genders in service uptake and utilization. Further evaluation of these differences may help inform the allocation of limited resources in this high HIV prevalence region of Russia.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Patient Care and STDsSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207