The HIV Modes of Transmission model: a systematic review of its findings and adherence to guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The HIV Modes of Transmission (MOT) model estimates the annual fraction of new HIV infections (FNI) acquired by different risk groups. It was designed to guide country-specific HIV prevention policies. To determine if the MOT produced context-specific recommendations, we analyzed MOT results by region and epidemic type, and explored the factors (e.g. data used to estimate parameter inputs, adherence to guidelines) influencing the differences. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and UNAIDS reports, and contacted UNAIDS country directors for published MOT results from MOT inception (2003) to 25 September 2012. RESULTS: We retrieved four journal articles and 20 UNAIDS reports covering 29 countries. In 13 countries, the largest FNI (range 26 to 63%) was acquired by the low-risk group and increased with low-risk population size. The FNI among female sex workers (FSWs) remained low (median 1.3%, range 0.04 to 14.4%), with little variability by region and epidemic type despite variability in sexual behaviour. In India and Thailand, where FSWs play an important role in transmission, the FNI among FSWs was 2 and 4%, respectively. In contrast, the FNI among men who have sex with men (MSM) varied across regions (range 0.1 to 89%) and increased with MSM population size. The FNI among people who inject drugs (PWID, range 0 to 82%) was largest in early-phase epidemics with low overall HIV prevalence. Most MOT studies were conducted and reported as per guidelines but data quality remains an issue. CONCLUSIONS: Although countries are generally performing the MOT as per guidelines, there is little variation in the FNI (except among MSM and PWID) by region and epidemic type. Homogeneity in MOT FNI for FSWs, clients and low-risk groups may limit the utility of MOT for guiding country-specific interventions in heterosexual HIV epidemics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".