Gender Differences in HIV Progression to AIDS and Death in Industrialized Countries: Slower Disease Progression Following HIV Seroconversion in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate sex differences in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease progression before (pre-1997) and after (1997-2006) introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy, the authors used data from a collaboration of 23 HIV seroconverter cohort studies from Europe, Australia, and Canada restricted to the 6,923 seroconverters infected through injecting drug use and sex between men and women. Within a competing risk framework, they used Cox proportional hazards models allowing for late entry to evaluate sex differences in time from HIV seroconversion to death, to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and to each first AIDS-defining disease and death without AIDS. While no significant sex differences were found before 1997, from 1997 onward, women had a lower risk of AIDS (adjusted cumulative relative risk (aCRR) = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63, 0.90) and death (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.82) than men did. Compared with men, women also had lower risks of AIDS dementia complex (aCRR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.74), tuberculosis (aCRR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.92), Kaposi's sarcoma (aCRR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.99), lymphomas (aCRR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.96), and death without AIDS (aCRR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.98). Sex differences in HIV disease progression have become larger and statistically significant in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, supporting a stronger impact of health interventions among women.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".