HIV Treatment Optimism and Unsafe Anal Intercourse Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men: Findings from the Positive Connections Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This study was designed to examine the impact of HIV treatment optimism on sexual risk among a racially diverse sample of HIV-positive MSM. Survey data were collected from 346 racially diverse HIV-positive MSM. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 18 years of age, male, at least one incident of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the last year, currently on treatment. Other variables included demographics, sexual risk, depression, internalized homonegativity, HIV treatment history, alcohol/drug use and beliefs about HIV treatments (Susceptibility to transmit HIV, Severity of HIV infection and Condom Motivation). Those with lower income were more likely to report that HIV was less transmissible. A self-reported decrease in condom motivation was associated with being White, well-educated and increased alcohol/drug use. A decrease in Severity of HIV was associated with better mental health, being non-White and undetectable viral load. Sexual risk appears related to beliefs about how treatment affects the transmissibility of HIV. Race, socioeconomic status, alcohol/drug use, mental health and viral load were also associated with treatment beliefs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".