MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310049049 · doi:10.1080/15381501.2015.1116037

A systematic review of best practices in HIV care

2016· review· en· W2310049049 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoffrey Maina, Judy Mill, Jean Chaw-Kant, Vera Caine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsBest practiceHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Systematic reviewMedicineNursingMEDLINEPsychologyFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Best practices in HIV care have the potential to improve patient outcomes and inform practice. We conducted a systematic review of best practices in HIV care that were published from 2003 to 2013. Practices that demonstrated success in achieving desired results based on their objectives were included in the review. Two themes emerged from the eight articles reviewed: (a) the importance of linking newly diagnosed people living with HIV to care and (b) the role of integrated and comprehensive service provision in improving patient outcomes. Inconsistencies in reporting and arbitrary use of the term "best practices" were hurdles in this review.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HIV/AIDS & Social ServicesSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207