HIV testing behaviour and use of risk reduction strategies by HIV risk category among MSM in Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We carried out an analysis of a serobehavioural study of men who have sex with men >19 years of age in Vancouver, Canada to examine HIV testing behaviour and use of risk reduction strategies by HIV risk category, as defined by routinely gathered clinical data. We restricted our analysis to those who self-identified as HIV-negative, completed a questionnaire, and provided a dried blood spot sample. Of 842 participants, 365 (43.3%) were categorised as lower-risk, 245 (29.1%) as medium-risk and 232 (27.6%) as higher-risk. The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection was low (lower 0.8%, medium 3.3%, higher 3.9%; p = 0.032). Participants differed by risk category in terms of having had an HIV test in the previous year (lower 46.5%, medium 54.6%, higher 67.0%; p < 0.001) and in their use of serosorting (lower 23.3%, medium 48.3%, higher 43.1%; p < 0.001) and only having sex with HIV-positive men if those men had low viral loads or were taking HIV medication (lower 5.1%, medium 4.8%, higher 10.9%; p = 0.021) as risk reduction strategies. These findings speak to the need to consider segmented health promotion services for men who have sex with men with differing risk profiles. Risk stratification could be used to determine who might benefit from tailored multiple health promotion interventions, including HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".