Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need to develop vaginal microbicides to empower women to better control their own sexual life and to protect themselves against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Prevention of STIs with its 330 million cases a year would have a great global health impact. Because of their anatomy, women are up to 8 times more susceptible than men to STIs including HIV. Women who can't negotiate condom use with their male partners have no means of protecting themselves from these infections. In the last few years, especially after the recent failures of several microbicides in Phase III trials, there was increasing pressure from those favoring the use of a more targeted approach to introduce marketed antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) into microbicides. This Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) concept which targets only HIV using specific ARVs contrasts with the primary approach of broad spectrum microbicides which aimed at offering universal protection against several sexually transmitted pathogens. However, before using ARVs as PrEP for HIV prevention, there are still many important issues to consider. In this article, we compare both strategies, while reviewing the last 15 years of microbicide research and its future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".