MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102237390 · doi:10.1177/0956462412472826

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto: a retrospective review of patient eligibility and clinical outcomes

2013· review· en· W2102237390 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A C H Chan, Kevin Gough, Deborah Yoong, M Dimeo, Darrell H. S. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsMedicinePost-exposure prophylaxisAsymptomaticSyphilisMen who have sex with menHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PediatricsSurgeryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stringent eligibility criteria, drug costs and antiretroviral toxicities are challenges in delivering HIV non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP). We reviewed patients' nPEP eligibility and clinical outcomes at St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada to identify opportunities for improvement. Of 241 patients, 59%, 36% and 6% presented for high- (receptive anal/vaginal, blood), medium- (insertive anal/vaginal) and low-risk (oral) sexual exposures, respectively, and nearly all (93%) presented within 72 hours. Of 205 patients given nPEP, 20 were known to have discontinued nPEP prematurely: three due to costs but none due to toxicities. Two HIV seroconversions occurred in patients with suspected ongoing potential exposures. Five asymptomatic syphilis diagnoses were made among 71 tested. Only 39% and 19% of nPEP patients returned to our institution for follow-up at 3-4 and six months, respectively. Our findings underscore the feasibility and importance of nPEP programmes to HIV and sexually transmitted infection control, while identifying opportunities for improvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.445
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207