French HIV Experts on Early Antiretroviral Treatment for Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early use of highly active antiretroviral treatment (ART) in people living with HIV for HIV prevention has gained legitimacy but remains controversial. Nineteen French HIV experts with diverse specializations (over half of whom were clinicians) were qualitatively interviewed on their views about ART irrespective of CD4 count of more than 500 cells/mm3 for purposes of HIV prevention, which is not systematically recommended in France. Content analysis identified 2 broad categories: individual considerations (subcategories: patient health and well-being; patient preparedness and choice) and collective considerations (subcategories:HIV transmission risk; impact on the epidemic; cost). Uncertainty surrounded many experts' considerations, and unity was lacking on key issues (eg, candidacy for early preventive treatment, expected clinical- and population-level effects). An umbrella theme labeled "Weighing the merits of early ART in the face of uncertainties was identified. Our analyses raise doubts about the current acceptability of widespread implementation of early ART for HIV prevention in France.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".