MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094470215 · doi:10.1177/1545109708320686

Validity of Self-Reported Adherence Among Injection Drug Users

2008· article· en· W2094470215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas Kerr, Robert S. Hogg, Benita Yip, Mark Tyndall, Julio Montaner, Evan Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyMedical prescriptionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DrugCohortProspective cohort studyAntiretroviral therapyFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryViral loadPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Vancouver, the availability of prescription refill data for all HIV-infected individuals plus a prospective cohort of injection drug users (IDUs) permitted an examination of the validity of self-reported highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) adherence among IDUs. METHODS: Self-reported HAART adherence among Vancouver Injection Drug Users Study participants was compared with pharmacy refill rates from the British Columbia Drug Treatment Program database. Pearson's correlation coefficient and Pearson's chi(2) test were used to assess associations between adherence as measured by self-report and pharmacy refill data. RESULTS: Among 88 HIV-infected IDUs, 48 (55%) had an adherence rate of > or =75% as measured by pharmacy refill adherence, whereas 81 (92%) had an adherence rate of > or =75% as measured by self-report. Self-reported adherence was not statistically associated with pharmacy refill adherence (P > .1). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the validity of self-report measures may be limited when applied to community-recruited IDUs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS CareSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207