Delayed Application of Condoms Is a Risk Factor for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection among Homosexual and Bisexual Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this analysis was to identify risk factors for recent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among homosexual and bisexual men in Ontario, Canada, during 1998-2001. Participants were recruited through the provincial HIV diagnostic laboratory and through physicians and community organizations. HIV test results were used to identify recent seroconverters (cases). A subsample of 183 men (62 cases and 121 controls) enrolled in the Polaris HIV Seroconversion Study as of June 2001 was analyzed. This analysis focused on sexual behaviors with partners who were HIV-positive or whose HIV status was unknown. In multiple logistic regression, independent risk factors were identified. Rates of unprotected receptive oral, insertive anal, and receptive anal sex and delayed application of condoms during receptive anal sex (RAS) were significantly higher among cases (97%, 41%, 53%, and 32%, respectively) than among controls (73%, 19%, 14%, and 2%). Independent risk factors for HIV infection were RAS without condoms (odds ratio = 4.4, p = 0.0004) and delayed application of condoms during RAS (odds ratio = 5.8, p = 0.01). There was an association with condom failure (breakage or slippage) during RAS that approached significance (odds ratio = 2.9, p = 0.09). Delayed application of condoms for RAS may result in contact with preejaculatory fluid. This behavior, which to date has received little attention, may pose as much risk for HIV infection as fully unprotected RAS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".