HIV Infection among Transgender Women: Challenges and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copyright: © 2014 Kerr T, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Impressive gains continue to be made in the global fight against HIV disease. Notably, a new and growing body of observational and experimental evidence has revealed the powerful role that antiretroviral therapy can play in reducing not only morbidity and mortality at the individual level, but also HIV transmission at the population level [1,2]. This has led to renewed calls for the aggressive scale-up of HIV treatment, calls that have been supported by an array of cost effectiveness studies and prompted slogans referring to a potential “AIDS-free generation”. In addition, several studies demonstrated the potential efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among HIVnegative individuals at risk, although fears regarding low adherence and implementation challenges resulted in a low uptake of this intervention. In 2013, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released new evidence from the Bangkok Tenofovir Study suggesting that the benefits of PrEP interventions could likely be extended to people who inject drugs [3]. This trial built upon the results of previous studies reporting on potential benefits of PrEP for men who have sex with men and heterosexually active women and men [4-6].
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 | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".