Late Presentation for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Initiatives to improve early detection and access to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) services have increased over time. We assessed the immune status of patients at initial presentation for HIV care from 1997 to 2007 in 13 US and Canadian clinical cohorts. METHODS. We analyzed data from 44,491 HIV-infected patients enrolled in the North American-AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. We identified first presentation for HIV care as the time of first CD4(+) T lymphocyte (CD4) count and excluded patients who prior to this date had HIV RNA measurements, evidence of antiretroviral exposure, or a history of AIDS-defining illness. Trends in mean CD4 count (measured as cells/mm(3)) and 95% confidence intervals were determined using linear regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, HIV transmission risk, and cohort. RESULTS. Median age at first presentation for HIV care increased over time (range, 40-43 years; P < .01), whereas the percentage of patients with injection drug use HIV transmission risk decreased (from 26% to 14%; P < .01) and heterosexual transmission risk increased (from 16% to 23%; P < .01). Median CD4 count at presentation increased from 256 cells/mm(3) (interquartile range, 96-455 cells/mm(3)) to 317 cells/mm(3) (interquartile range, 135-517 cells/mm(3)) from 1997 to 2007 (P < .01). The percentage of patients with a CD4 count > or = 350 cells/mm(3) at first presentation also increased from 1997 to 2007 (from 38% to 46%; P < .01). The estimated adjusted mean CD4 count increased at a rate of 6 cells/mm(3) per year (95% confidence interval, 5-7 cells/mm(3) per year). CONCLUSION. CD4 count at first presentation for HIV care has increased annually over the past 11 years but has remained <350 cells/mm(3), which suggests the urgent need for earlier HIV diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".