Effect of Condom Use on Per-act HSV-2 Transmission Risk in HIV-1, HSV-2-discordant Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of condoms for protection against transmission of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) has been examined in a variety of populations with different effect measures. Often the efficacy has been assessed as change in hazard of transmission with consistent vs inconsistent use, independent of the number of acts. Condom efficacy has not previously measured on a per-act basis. METHODS: We examined the per-act HSV-2 transmission rates with and without condom use among 911 African HSV-2 and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) serodiscordant couples followed for an average of 18 months in an HIV prevention study. Infectivity models were used to associate the log10 probability of HSV-2 transmission over monthly risk periods with reported numbers of protected and unprotected sex acts. Condom efficacy was computed as the proportionate reduction in transmission risk for protected relative to unprotected sex acts. RESULTS: Transmission of HSV-2 occurred in 68 couples, including 17 with susceptible women and 51 with susceptible men. The highest rate of transmission was from men to women: 28.5 transmissions per 1000 unprotected sex acts. We found that condoms were differentially protective against HSV-2 transmission by sex; condom use reduced per-act risk of transmission from men to women by 96% (P < .001) and marginally from women to men by 65% (P = .060). CONCLUSIONS: Condoms are recommended as an effective preventive method for heterosexual transmission of HSV-2.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".